Targum Yonasan adds, V’kamu b’chutzpah, “They arose with insolence.” How does the pasuk imply that they acted with chutzpah, impudence, towards Moshe Rabbeinu? On the contrary, the pasuk clearly states that they arose for him. Maharitz gives a pragmatic explanation, one that teaches us a profound lesson of the definition of chutzpah. He explains that knowing that Moshe was coming, they arose before he came, so that they would not have to get up for him. They refused to demonstrate any derech eretz, respect, for Moshe, so they were already standing when Moshe came. This is considered standing up with chutzpah.
In an alternative explanation, they looked directly at Moshe’s face, indicating that they were neither in awe of him, nor of the Karnei Hod, Rays of Glory, that shone from Moshe. This is the meaning of Va’yakumu lifnei Moshe, the word lifnei being derived from panim, face. They did not fear facing Moshe.
It was this chutzpah that defined their dispute. It “happens” that people do not see eye to eye on an issue. There is a way, however, to discuss the area of controversy. When the dialogue becomes a forum for insolence and disparaging remarks, it is indicative of a machlokes, dispute, shelo l’shem Shomayim, not for the sake of Heaven.
