וַיַּ֣עַן אִֽישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל֩ אֶת־אִ֨ישׁ יְהוּדָ֜ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר עֶשֶׂר־יָד֨וֹת לִ֣י בַמֶּ֘לֶךְ֮ וְגַם־בְּדָוִד֮ אֲנִ֣י מִמְּךָ֒ וּמַדּ֙וּעַ֙ הֱקִלֹּתַ֔נִי וְלֹא־הָיָ֨ה דְבָרִ֥י רִאשׁ֛וֹן לִ֖י לְהָשִׁ֣יב אֶת־מַלְכִּ֑י וַיִּ֙קֶשׁ֙ דְּבַר־אִ֣ישׁ יְהוּדָ֔ה מִדְּבַ֖ר אִ֥ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
But Israel’s side answered Judah’s side, “We have ten shares in the king, and in David,
too, we have more than you. Why then have you slighted us? Were we not the first to propose that our king be brought back?” However, Judah’s side prevailed over Israel’s side.
(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 אִישׁ terms, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in “Notes on Gender in Translation,” pp. 11–16.)
Israel’s militia and Judah’s militia continue to parley with each other as unhappy competitors. On the usages here, see my comment at the previous verse.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men of Israel’ and ‘the men of Judah’ miss the situational nuances. On properly rendering the collective usage of אִישׁ into idiomatic English, see my comment at Josh 10:24. Meanwhile, the fact that women are not in view is self-evident from the military context.