(טו) גַּם֮ בְּטֶ֘רֶם֮ יַקְטִר֣וּן אֶת־הַחֵ֒לֶב֒ וּבָ֣א ׀ נַ֣עַר הַכֹּהֵ֗ן וְאָמַר֙ לָאִ֣ישׁ הַזֹּבֵ֔חַ תְּנָ֣ה בָשָׂ֔ר לִצְל֖וֹת לַכֹּהֵ֑ן וְלֹא־יִקַּ֧ח מִמְּךָ֛ בָּשָׂ֥ר מְבֻשָּׁ֖ל כִּ֥י אִם־חָֽי׃
[But now] even before the suet was turned into smoke, the priest’s boy would come and say to the party that was sacrificing, “Hand over some meat to roast for the priest; for he won’t accept boiled meat from you, only raw.”
(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 containing אִישׁ.)
The narrator is introducing an inferable yet hypothetical participant into the discourse while sketching a new situation. This is the prototypical setting for speakers to employ אִישׁ: to establish the situation in the audience’s mind, it is a participant’s essential involvement that matters, more than their attributes (such as age or gender).
Women are in view as being among the bringers of sacrificial offerings. Hence there is no warrant for rendering in gendered terms.
As for rendering into English, man in the NJPS ‘the man who was sacrificing’ is no longer suitable as a gender-inclusive noun. The indefinite pronoun someone might be appropriate as a substitute referring expression, for it individuates its referent rather concretely. Yet it evokes too individualistic a picture for the contemporary audience. Better is the party, a role term that is more situationally oriented, and that allows an entire household to be in view behind the householder who is being addressed. (As exemplified by the account in 1:3–23, sacrifices were typically offered by households rather than lone individuals.) On the customary practice of representing a Hebrew situating noun via an English (relational) role term, see my comment at Josh 10:24.