וַיִּפְּל֤וּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶם֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ אֵ֕ל אֱלֹהֵ֥י הָרוּחֹ֖ת לְכׇל־בָּשָׂ֑ר הָאִ֤ישׁ אֶחָד֙ יֶחֱטָ֔א וְעַ֥ל כׇּל־הָעֵדָ֖ה תִּקְצֹֽף׃
But they fell on their faces and said, “O God, Source of the breath of all flesh! When one member sins, will You be wrathful with the whole community?”
(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 אִישׁ, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in “Notes on Gender in Translation,” pp. 11–16.)
Prototypically, אִישׁ is used when sketching a situation schematically. This is such an instance. Moses attempts to shed light on how best to respond to the situation under discussion, by making recourse to a schematic depiction of it. In this frame, the situation features one defining participant—who is labeled in terms of the situation, as אִישׁ.
The referential gender of אִישׁ is vague, because it is not clear whether Moses is referring to a type (raising a categorical question) or to an individual (referring specifically to Korah; cf. v. 19). However, this vagueness does not matter, because the basic point of Moses’ question is the same either way. And either way, gender is not at issue.
As for translation, the NJPS rendering “man” nowadays puts undue emphasis on gender. Given that man no longer serves a mainly situating function in such a locution, a role noun such as member is the closest equivalent. It preserves a focus on the situation, as needed.
This is not to claim that in Hebrew, אִישׁ profiles its referent as a member of some group (although I did make that claim in a 2008 article). Rather, “member” is the best equivalent term in this setting, in an idiomatic English translation such as RJPS.