(כה) וְֽאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶ֞ה יִמְצָ֣א הָאִ֗ישׁ אֶת־הַֽנַּעֲרָ֙ הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־בָּ֥הּ הָאִ֖ישׁ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּ֖הּ לְבַדּֽוֹ׃
But if the man comes upon the engaged woman in the open country, and he lies with her by force, only the man who lay with her shall die,
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
Prototypically, the label אִישׁ profiles its referent in terms of the depicted situation; that is, it relates the depicted situation’s key participant to that situation. Such is its function here.
The noun phrase הָאִישׁ is often employed to mark a significant development in a narrative or legal case, thus re-situating the referent.
Here אִישׁ is counterposed with נַּעֲרָ מְאֹרָשָׂה “an engaged woman” in a sexual situation—a context that restricts the denotation of אִישׁ to adult males. Thus gender is at issue, and women are definitely excluded from view.
As for translation, English idiom does not follow the Hebrew re-situating practice so exactly. Indeed, in its second occurrence in this verse, the NJPS rendering “the man” comes across as repetitive in context. The revised rendering employs a (masculine) pronoun for better English idiom, much as NJPS has done in other instances.
(This change is proposed also as an NJPS copyediting correction.)