וַיִּלְכֹּ֥ד גִּלְעָ֛ד אֶֽת־מַעְבְּר֥וֹת הַיַּרְדֵּ֖ן לְאֶפְרָ֑יִם וְֽ֠הָיָה כִּ֣י יֹאמְר֞וּ פְּלִיטֵ֤י אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ אֶעֱבֹ֔רָה וַיֹּ֨אמְרוּ ל֧וֹ אַנְשֵֽׁי־גִלְעָ֛ד הַֽאֶפְרָתִ֥י אַ֖תָּה וַיֹּ֥אמֶֽר ׀ לֹֽא׃
At sinakop ng Gilead ang mga tawiran ng Jordan laban sa Efraim; at nangyari, kapag sinasabi ng mga takas ng Efraim, “Patawirin ninyo ako,” ay sinasabi sa kanya ng mga lalaki ng Gilead, “Ikaw ba ay Efraimita?” At kung sabihin niya, “Hindi,”
Radak
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: