Комментарий о цитате к Шмуэль А 25:11

A foolish [naval] people without wisdom. Even though without wisdom is not the opposite of a foolish people, nevertheless it seems to me that this is its explanation. For regarding the word “naval” [fool/base person], various interpretations have been given by commentators. I say that anyone who is not generous of heart is called a “naval,” with proof from the verse The naval shall no longer be called generous, nor the miser said to be noble (Isaiah 32:5). This implies that a “naval” is the opposite of a generous person. Naval the Carmelite proves this, as he said Shall I take my bread, etc., and give it to men of whom I know nothing? (1 Samuel 25:11) About him it is said As his name, so is he; Naval is his name, and nevalah is with him (1 Samuel 25:25).
Perhaps this name is derived from the language of “yoval” [bring forth] and “yevulah” [produce], meaning just as you bring things to it [the land], so too this person who is not generous of heart spends all day bringing things from others to himself, but gives nothing to others.
Now, the person who errs thinks that the Holy One, blessed be He, has some need for His commandments. Who led him to think such a corrupt thought? This is only because he himself is base [naval] and not generous, and it seems implausible to him that one would do good to another for free unless he knows that the recipient of his kindness will return and repay him according to his deed. For if he is not expecting repayment, why would he do good to another for free? Thus he thinks the same about the Holy One, blessed be He. When he sees the greatness of the good that God has done for him, he thinks: “Why does He do these good things for me for free? This must be so that He too will receive benefit from me greater than these.” Therefore, He calls one who thinks this thought “naval” and not generous, because it seems implausible to him that God would do good to him out of generosity and kindness.
Therefore, it says afterward, Vayenabel the Rock of his salvation, meaning he spoke about Him as one would speak about one of the nebalim [stingy people]. Therefore, measure for measure, I will anger them with a stingy nation.
Further, He called him without wisdom, because besides being stingy and not generous, he is a son without wisdom, for he did not ask about this matter wisely.

He said to them: Go out and see what is an evil path that a person should distance himself from. Rabbi Eliezer says: A bad eye: We need to explain his question and their answer, as it is a known thing that the opposite of the straight way is the way that a person should distance from himself. And the correct [reason that the question was asked] is because there are several good traits the opposite of which are not bad; like the trait of piety which is a very great virtue - but if one is not pious, no bad will happen. About this, he said "a bad eye" - meaning to say, that a person not say stinginess is not bad since he doesn't extort or rob from his fellow. But [actually] its evil is great, as it is the basis for every bad trait. And from it, he will do every evil thing. As he should not say [about this], "If I do not reach the final culmination of the virtues, I [will] not be a pious man, but I will [still] be righteous in doing that which I was commanded about." And he does not know that it is 'a lack that cannot be counted.' Yet it will be lacking in his heart at the end of days - as the little that is lacking will be a big lack, as Shlomo, peace be upon him, stated in his wisdom (Ecclesiastes 10:1), "Dead flies turn the perfumer’s ointment fetid and putrid; so a little folly outweighs massive wisdom." He meant to say [that] just like a fly - which is a small thing - completely destroys a very important thing, the perfumer's ointment; so too is a little foolishness to the glory of a sage and an honored man. As the trait of miserliness causes a man to be empty (beliaal) of the good traits. [It is] like we find with Naval the Carmelite: Because he said (I Samuel 25:11), "Should I take my bread and my water, etc.," it stated about him (Samuel I 25:25), "Please, my lord, pay no attention to that empty man, Naval."

ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק , “and these are the descendants of Yitzchak the son of Avraham; Avraham fathered Yitzchak.” Tanchuma Toldot 6 explains that we find an interesting parallel between Avraham and Yitzchak on one side and David and his son Kilav. When David’s messengers had gone to see Naval and asked for some material assistance, (Samuel I 25,11) the latter replied: “Who is David Who is the son of Yishai? There are many slaves today who run away from their masters....Should I take my water, my bread, and my meat, which I slaughtered for the benefit of my shearers and give it to people whom I do not know whence they have come?” When David heard this he made ready with his men to assault Naval and to take what they wanted. At that point, Avigayil, Naval’s wife, hastened to take 200 loaves of bread, two jars of wine, five dressed sheep, etc., and she told her servants to carry these ahead of her as a gift offering for David and his men. (Avigayil succeeded in persuading David not to act violently against her husband.) The Book of Samuel continues (verse 38) to describe that ten days after this event Naval took sick with a stroke and died. Upon hearing this, David proposed marriage to Avigayil his widow. After Avigayil accepted his proposal, David did not sleep with her for three months in order to avoid the suspicion that any child born to them would be suspected as having been fathered by Avigayil’s first husband. After the three months had passed, David had marital relations with Avigayil and she conceived and gave birth to a son named כלאב, meaning כולו אב “he looked entirely like his father (David),” to preclude anyone thinking that he had been fathered by Naval.