וַיֵּ֩שֶׁב֩ יְהוּדָ֨ה וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל לָבֶ֗טַח אִ֣ישׁ תַּ֤חַת גַּפְנוֹ֙ וְתַ֣חַת תְּאֵנָת֔וֹ מִדָּ֖ן וְעַד־בְּאֵ֣ר שָׁ֑בַע כֹּ֖ל יְמֵ֥י שְׁלֹמֹֽה׃
All the days of Solomon, Judah and Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba dwelt in safety, every family under its own vine and fig tree.
(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.)
Here the noun אִישׁ appears in the phrase אִישׁ תַּחַת גַּפְנוֹ וְתַחַת תְּאֵנָתוֹ. The function of that phrase is to indicate the manner of action of the clause’s verb, וַיֵּשֶׁב “dwelt.” The action involves distribution. Distribution is the formal name (in grammar and linguistics) for the concept that a specified action is carried out by individual members of a set, across the entire set, without regard to the identity of the individuals involved. Here, although the verb is singular, its subject nouns are collective. The collectivity then comprises the set across which the act of dwelling is predicated.
The important point is that in such constructions, אִישׁ denotes a generic element in the set—rather than an individual human being. Such usage is still a reflex of this noun’s prototypical function of labeling an essential participant in the schematic depiction of a situation of interest. Cognitively speaking, depicting the manner of action in a schematic manner puts the focus on the function of situating the participants efficiently, and that is what licenses the application of this noun to non-human entities. To put the matter more technically, such expressions work because distributive relations are carried out on the discourse level and involve manipulations within the audience’s discourse model (rather than making reference to the “real world”).
In distributive constructions like this one, then, אִישׁ denotes whichever level of social organization is the most salient. That can variously be individuals, households, clans, tribes, or nations. In a given instance, the favored construal (the plain sense) is the one that renders the text as more coherent, informative, and relevant.
The distribution of fruit trees—the source of a stable food supply—is more readily associated with households than with individuals. (Israelite society’s structuring by corporate households—its basic social and economic unit—went without saying because it was a universal experience for the text’s ancient audience.) That is, אִישׁ here designates a household. For other instances where אִישׁ refers to households, see Exod. 12:4; 16:16; Num. 1:52, 2:2, 34.
Households are not gendered, and so a gendered rendering is not warranted.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS “everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree” implicitly invokes a stereotypical householder. However, that implication may be too subtle; the household-based aspect that would have been evoked for the text’s ancient audience may well be overlooked by the contemporary reader. Instead, they may imagine that the text is paying attention only to males rather than females. The rendering nowadays comes across as unduly male.
Other translations have been more explicit: ‘Each family…’ (CEV, NLT). The revised rendering adopts that language and avoids gendered pronouns: “every family under its own vine and fig tree.”