Tafsir of Al-Balad 90:16

...that is, poverty. It is a noun of place or time derived from the same root (mimī), as previously mentioned, from tariba (to become poor), meaning he has become attached to the dust (turab) because he possesses nothing. As for at-raba, it means to become wealthy, i.e., to become a possessor of wealth, like turath (inheritance) in abundance, just as it is said athra.

It is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he interpreted it here as one who has nothing to protect him from the dust. In another narration, it is one who is cast upon the road, sitting on the dust, with no place to spend the night. This is close to what Ibn Mardawayh narrated from Ibn Umar in a marfu’ (elevated) report: “It is one whose refuge is the dunghills.” If this is authentic, one should not turn away from it. In another narration from Ibn Abbas, it is one who leaves his house and turns his face toward it, certain that there is nothing in it but dust. ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from him that he said regarding this: “meaning ba’id al-turbah (far from his land/soil),” i.e., far from his homeland; though this view is far-fetched.

The description (sifah) according to some of these interpretations is a clarificatory description (kashifah), and according to others, it is a restrictive one (mukhassisah). The "or" (aw) is, according to what is in al-Bahr, for diversification.

The lack of repetition of "la" (no/not) here has been questioned, given that it enters upon the past tense, and they (the grammarians) say that repetition is necessary in such a case, as in His, the Exalted’s saying: "He did not believe and did not pray," and the saying of al-Hutay’ah: And if a favor is upon them, they reward it, And if they are favored, they do not cloud it, nor do they spoil it.

And rare is his saying: No, by them! Indeed al-Harith ibn Jabalah Committed an offense against his father, then killed him, and among his neighbors, he had no pledge. So what bad thing did he not do?

The response given is that what is necessary is its repetition either explicitly or in meaning. It is repeated here in meaning because the interpretation of the "steep path" (aqabah) as the multiple matters explained entails the interpretation of the "assault" (iqtiham). Thus, "so he has not assaulted the steep path" holds the meaning of "so he has not freed a slave, nor fed an orphan," etc. It may be said regarding the verse in a similar fashion that the generality ('umum) within it stands in place of repetition.

This necessitates, according to what has been said, the permissibility of saying "No [la] came to me Zayd and ‘Amr," because it is in the meaning of "No Zayd came to me, and no ‘Amr came to me." Some have followed him in this, and al-Zajjaj and al-Farra’ said it is permissible for it to be of that type, such as the saying of the Exalted...