Leviticus 17:3 - On the noun אִישׁ

(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 situating noun אִישׁ labels an essential party whose involvement defines the situation of interest. At the same time, by regarding its referent in terms of the overall situation, אִישׁ directs our attention to that situation. In this case, the statement is couched in terms of the key participant. Cognitively speaking, the situation frame is accessed by starting with that participant (as opposed to starting with the activity of interest). This appears to be the distinctive vantage point of certain Priestly passages.

The word אִישׁ is repeated in 20 biblical verses; many of them occur in Leviticus, as here. Such repetition אִישׁ אִישׁ imparts a “no exceptions” meaning to the situation that is being depicted, as I explained in my comment to Exod 36:4.

(Jacob Milgrom, in his Anchor Bible commentary ad loc., remarks about אִישׁ אִישׁ that “This idiom is distributive in meaning.” That appears to be expressing the same basic idea that I am putting forward, but it is poorly worded—being not only laconic but also at odds with the usual linguistic meaning of distributive. Actually, no distribution per se takes place in the present case or most other cases of repetition of אִישׁ. And in the two cases where there is distribution—in Exod 36:4 and Num 1:3—it would be expressed by just one instance of אִישׁ. Apparently Milgrom was using distributive to mean “applying to the entire specified group.”)

In order to understand the meaning of the repetition here, we must first recognize the meaning of a speaker’s using just one instance of אִישׁ by itself. What is the difference between the two formulations? Here (unlike in Exod 36:4), אִישׁ is used to frame a hypothetical situation of interest in terms of its defining participant. The first such instance with a similar construction is in a passage that discusses the formula for the tabernacle’s incense (Exod 30:33), אִ֚ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִרְקַ֣ח כָּמֹ֔הוּ ‘whoever compounds its like’ (NJPS). Many other such examples could be cited. The point is that singleton אִישׁ readily enables a situation to be evoked in the audience’s mind, and that the participant in question could be anyone. (It thus functions like an indefinite pronoun in English.)

Here, the prohibited activity under discussion, by its very nature (often occurring outside the camp), could be done without detection. Potential perpetrators might easily say to themselves, “Nobody will ever know, so what difference will it make? Why should I bother to go all the way over to the Tent of Meeting?”

To compensate for that vulnerability, the commandment goes out of its way, by repeating אִישׁ, to underscore that the prohibition applies to each and every Israelite—to everyone without exception. The intensification that is expressed is in terms of the possibility of participation in the depicted situation.

Contrast Lev 21:17, which describes the defining participant in a prohibited situation in which their evading detection is not possible: אִ֣ישׁ מִֽזַּרְעֲךָ֞ לְדֹרֹתָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִהְיֶ֥ה בוֹ֙ מ֔וּם ‘[No] man among your offspring throughout the ages who has a [physical] defect’ (NJPS). As expected, the situating noun is used only once, for that is sufficient.

As for rendering into English, the NJPS “if anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox…” focuses attention on the prohibited activity, rather than on the participant whose behavior is of concern. The revised rendering expresses the latter vantage point by providing more of a participant focus.

The new footnote then addresses the intensified nuance, which cannot be expressed as elegantly in English as in Hebrew.