וּמַלְאָכִ֡ים שָׁלַ֣ח גִּדְעוֹן֩ בְּכׇל־הַ֨ר אֶפְרַ֜יִם לֵאמֹ֗ר רְד֞וּ לִקְרַ֤את מִדְיָן֙ וְלִכְד֤וּ לָהֶם֙ אֶת־הַמַּ֔יִם עַ֛ד בֵּ֥ית בָּרָ֖ה וְאֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּ֑ן וַיִּצָּעֵ֞ק כׇּל־אִ֤ישׁ אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ וַיִּלְכְּד֣וּ אֶת־הַמַּ֔יִם עַ֛ד בֵּ֥ית בָּרָ֖ה וְאֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּֽן׃
Gideon also sent messengers all through the hill country of Ephraim with this order: “Go down ahead of the Midianites and seize their access to the water all along the Jordan down to Beth-barah.” So Ephraim’s entire contingent rallied and seized the waterside down to Beth-barah by the Jordan.
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation—an adaptation of the NJPS translation—showing a slight modification projected for October 2023. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ.)
On the “collective” usage of the singular אִישׁ in the context of hostilities, see my comment to the previous verse. Here, this usage profiles the referent more precisely as a distinct entity within a larger military force. That is, it regards Ephraim’s force as a participant that is essential for properly grasping the depicted situation—and therefore as a contingent of the Israelite forces under Gideon’s command. Similar instances include 8:1; 12:1; 1 Sam 11:8; 15:4; 2 Sam 10:6, 8; 19:15; 24:9; and for a non-military contingent, Jer 44:26–27.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men of Ephraim’ nowadays places undue emphasis on masculinity. Furthermore, it relies upon an archaic sense of men as participants. Worst of all, it misses the situational nuance described above. On more properly rendering the Hebrew term into idiomatic English, see my comment at Josh 10:24. Meanwhile, the fact that women are not in view can go without saying, because it is self-evident from the military context.