וְאִ֣ישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל נִשְׁבַּ֥ע בַּמִּצְפָּ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר אִ֣ישׁ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ לֹא־יִתֵּ֥ן בִּתּ֛וֹ לְבִנְיָמִ֖ן לְאִשָּֽׁה׃
Now Israel’s side had taken an oath at Mizpah: “None of us must ever give his daughter in marriage to a Benjaminite.”
(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, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
This is one of the instances where a “collective” usage of אִישׁ is clearly evident from the content of the referent’s reported speech (“us”). Cf. also the alternative label that the narrator uses to recount this act in v. 18: בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל.
When a referring expression includes אִישׁ in construct with a group name, such as אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל֙, our noun marks its referent’s defining participation in the depicted situation. Here, in a retrospective statement in the context of intergroup hostilities, it labels the assembled militia in terms of its role as a party to the conflict with Benjamin. The militia’s members are construed as a unit—hence the singular noun. This usage regards them as one of the two opposing sides, as warring parties. On the meaning of this conventional usage in the context of hostilities, see further my comment at Josh 10:24.
At the same time, the ascribed action amounts to the group’s ratification of an agreement—an agreement of the type that requires the group’s full participation (cf. next comment on this verse). This usage likewise seems to call for a “collective” usage of אִישׁ—as suggested by its appearance also in similar ratification settings where hostilities are absent from the picture: Deut 27:14; 29:9; 1 Kgs 8:2 // 2 Chr 5:2; 1 Chr 16:3. (Those five cases differ from the present one in employing the quantifier כָּל, and in the fact that most interpreters adopt an individual rather than a collective reading of אִישׁ.) In these cases, the situational context’s expectation of unanimous action arguably warrants the singular אִישׁ.
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘the men of Israel’ recognizes a collective usage, but without a situational orientation. 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.