Rivkah's existential question, and G8d's silver filigree answer

ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה, The children were quarrelling inside her, etc. Both the expression ויתרצצו, "they quarrelled" and the words למה זה אנכי, "why am I therefore" need examination. Rashi explains that "if the pain involved in giving birth is so intense, why did I bother to pray to become pregnant?" It is difficult to reconcile our image of the pious and righteous Rebeccah with Rashi's comment, i.e. that she did not think the pain worth her while in order to become a mother. Also, if that had been her real concern, how did G'd's response alleviate her problem? Our rabbis have offered many and various explanations none of which are acceptable as the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the word ויתרצצו is based on the root רצץ, to crush. Since there were two fetuses in her womb she felt as if her womb was being crushed. She was afraid that she could not complete her pregnancy and would have a miscarriage as a result. Her question then was rhetorical, i.e. "what good was my becoming pregnant if this pregnancy will not be completed successfully?" The words: "she went to ask G'd," mean that she prayed to G'd to let her complete her pregnancy without mishap. She felt that the miracle of her becoming pregnant after all these years surely should not be wasted by her not giving birth to a healthy child.

(19) Having spoken of similes,...and we read in Midrash, Shir ha-shirim Rabba, 1:1); “To what were the words of the Law to be compared before the time of Solomon? To a well the waters of which are at a great depth, and though cool and fresh, yet no man could drink of them. A clever man joined cord with cord, and rope with rope, and drew up and drank. So Solomon went from figure to figure, and from subject to subject, till he obtained the true sense of the Law.” So far go the words of our Sages. I do not believe that any intelligent man thinks that “the words of the Law” mentioned here as requiring the application of figures in order to be understood, can refer to the rules for building tabernacles, for preparing the lulab, or for the four kinds of trustees. What is really meant is the apprehension of profound and difficult subjects, concerning which our Sages said, “If a man loses in his house a sela, or a pearl, he can find it by lighting a taper worth only one issar. Thus the parables in themselves are of no great value, but through them the words of the holy Law are rendered intelligible.” These likewise are the words of our Sages; consider well their statement, that the deeper sense of the words of the holy Law are pearls, and the literal acceptation of a figure is of no value in itself. They compare the hidden meaning included in the literal sense of the simile to a pearl lost in a dark room, which is full of furniture. It is certain that the pearl is in the room, but the man can neither see it nor know where it lies. It is just as if the pearl were no longer in his possession, for, as has been stated, it affords him no benefit whatever until he kindles a light. The same is the case with the comprehension of that which the simile represents. The wise king said, “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in vessels of silver” (Prov. 25:11). Hear the explanation of what he said:—The word maskiyoth, the Hebrew equivalent for “vessels,” denotes “filigree network”—i.e., things in which there are very small apertures, such as are frequently wrought by silversmiths. They are called in Hebrew maskiyyoth (lit. “transpicuous,” from the verb sakah, “he saw,” a root which occurs also in the Targum of Onkelos, Gen. 26:8), because the eye penetrates through them.