Kommentar zu Schemuel I 1:1

And there was a man. It all follows the order: Moshe gave over the Torah to Yehoshua and Yehoshua to the Elders and each Judge to his successor until it reached Eili who gave it over to Shmuel¹I.e., the “ו” of וְאֵלֶה links the Book of Shmuel with the preceeding Book of Shoftim and serves as a link between the oral tradition as stated in the Mishnah, “…and the Elders…” as we learned (in the Mishnah), "… and the Elders [gave it over] to the Prophets…"²Maseches Avos 1:1.

Ramatayim of the Tzufites: That is the name of the place, due to there being two tall (ramot) mountains, viewing (tzofot) one across from the other.

And there was (Vayehi) a man from Ramatayim of the Tzufites: We have already written at the beginning of the book of Yehoshua that the you will find that the [letter,] vav (usually meaning, and), is customary in the Hebrew language at the beginning of things, and likewise in the language of Yishmael (Arabic). And we also wrote about the grammar of the word, yehi, there.

From Ramasayim Tsofim. There were two hills each visible to the other.³Elkonoh lived in Romoh, see below verse 19; and he prophesied in Tsofim—Da’as Sofrim.⁴Maseches Megillah 14a. Targum Yonoson renders צוֹפִים: "of the disciples of prophets."

Efrati (Ephraimite): It is speaking about Tzuf. As he too was from Mount Ephraim, but not from the Children of Ephraim. From he was a Levite, specifically from the sons of Korach.

From Ramatayim: Our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed wrote, they were two tall (ramot) mountains, viewing (tzofot) one another. And if so - that they were two mountains, and the word indicates so, since it is an expression of duality - the explanation of, "from the two tall mountains," would be, from one of the two tall mountains. This is like, "and he was buried in the hills of Gilead" (Judges 12:4); "with two can you be my son-in-law" (I Samuel 18:21), and that which is similar to them. And the meaning of Tzufites, is that it is [speaking] about the high mountains, as we explained. But Tzufites can [also] be explained as prophets. And the, "from," that it mentioned is in the place of two, as if to [also] say from the family of Tzufites. And so did Yonatan translate it [in the Targum], "from the students of the prophets." As a prophet is [also] called a tzofeh (seer or scout), as in, "I have given you as a tzofeh" (Ezekiel 33:7). And this is the correct explanation, since he was from a family of priests. For he was from the sons of Korach, as his lineage is detailed in Chronicles; and the sons of Korach were prophets - Asir, Elkanah and Aviasaf. And Elkanah, the father of Shmuel, was from the descendants of Elkanah, the son of Korach.

Elkonoh. He was a Levite of the sons of Aviosof, the son of Korach —his ancestry is thus recorded in Divrei Hayomim.⁵I Divrei Hayomim 6:19-23.

From Mount Ephraim: He was a Levite and lived in the Land of Ephraim. And it is possible that it is for this reason that the story of the concubine at Givea was made adjacent to this story about the matter of Elkanah and the proceedings of Shmuel. For [the protagonist in the other story] also lived in the foothills of Mount Ephraim and he was the cause of much evil to Israel; whereas this one was the cause of great goodness to Israel - and his son, Shmuel, brought Israel back to the proper path.

From the land of Ephrayim. [Targum] Yonoson renders "on the mountain of the house of Ephrayim." The Midrash Aggadah [renders] אֶפְרָתִי —a palace dweller, an important person,⁶Rashi emphasizes that אֶפְרָתִי does not mean that he was from the tribe of Ephrayim because it has already been established that he was from the tribe of Leivi. as in "let us extend אַפִּרְיוֹן to Rabbi Shimon,"⁷Maseches Bava Metzia 119a. [meaning] an expression of favor.

An Efrati:. This is said about two facets. The one relates to the tribe, concerning one who is from the tribe of Ephraim, or someone who lives in the Land of Ephraim - as in, "Are you an Efrati" (Judges 12:5). And the [other] relates to Beit Lechem-Efrat - as in, "and David was an Efrati" (I Samuel 17:12); "Machlon and Khiliyon were Efrati" (Ruth 1:2). And this concerns Mount Ephraim, as it stated (here), "from Mount Ephraim." And that is why, it called him an Efrati. For we can not explain that he was an Efrati concerning the tribe of Ephraim, since he was a Levite. If so, that which it stated, "an Efrati," is that he was from Mount Ephraim. But it is a wonder - after it stated, "from Mount Ephraim," why did it state, "an Efrati," afterwards? And it is possible that it also said it because he and his forefathers lived there. So it stated, "Efrati," about Tzuf, not about Elkanah. For it already explained about Elkanah, "from Mount Ephraim." This is correct, according to the simple understanding. And that which it stated that he and his forefathers had lived in Mount Ephraim appears to be because their inheritance was there, as they were from the sons of Kehat. And the sons of Kehat had cities in Mount Ephraim, as it stated in the book of Yehoshua (Joshua 21:20), "And to the sons of Kehat, the Levites, etc. Shechem and its fields on Mount Ephraim." But the homiletical teaching explains it as an expression of greatness and importance:

Efrati: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, "Noble." And Yonatan translated it [in the Targum] as, "a man who was distinguished by holiness on the Mountain of the House of Ephraim."