Despite the decline in the number of marriages, they were not replaced by proper substitutes. • The option of adultery became legitimate in some circles, but I remained in my mind.

• Photo: 

  Illustration: Shimon Engel

This week, in honor of Tu B'Av, the Central Bureau of Statistics released the usual data for this day: how much we got married, and at what age. 27.3) But if we look back, to the 1970s, it is clear that the change in the pattern of marriage is much more significant, especially among the secular. They marry later, and there are many divorces.

If the increase in the age of marriage is a blessed progression, or a sign that people marry only after they have developed independence, and also choose their life partners themselves, as opposed to outdated and repressive methods like parents or matchmakers - one can raise a glass to human development life. 

Provided you like a welcome progress towards divorce. 

Who the people who abused in the marriage institution and brought out his bad slander - is not known. True, throughout history we have known different types of marriages that today are icing on the cake. Even Judaism itself, which sang on Passover "three fathers, four mothers, and in addition two slaves," found it appropriate to ban the proliferation of women in Europe in the early 11th century. Apparently the fact that the Gentiles have already moved to monogamy has also affected the mood in the Jewish communities because how strange you can be as a Jew. 

And maybe it was the Catholic marriage, even though other currents in Christianity allowed divorce, and maybe the feminists came up with all sorts of ideas like the right to vote and be elected to be healthy, but unfortunately they did not see marriage as the culmination of any woman's personal accomplishments. Marriage is indeed not the pinnacle of female achievement, but human in general: to marry and start a family.

I do not say a sentence so radical and subversive with ease. True, it is contrary to any progress, let alone the spirit of the time. The spirit of the period can not object to divorce as in the Western world about a third of marriages will end long before death separates the couple, which can cast a heavy shadow over any marriage scene in any self-respecting film. Both the screenwriters and the viewers know that this is not the end of the verse and they have not lived happily ever after. And yet I stuck to my position, as any criticism of the institution of marriage dwarfs the institution of divorce. And if we have already started with criticism - the institution of bachelorhood is not something either.

The Western spirit of freedom emphasized the individual as the center of all rights and is the purpose and cause of everything. With all the great respect I have for the individual, he is not at the peak of his ability and development when he only cares for himself. The smallest human unit is the family, where the person learns to take responsibility for the well-being and rights of others. In the family the person comes out of the exclusive commitment to himself and gives his neck, voluntarily and of free choice, to bear the burden of the other. True, the writer and philosopher Sartre wrote: "Hell is the other," but forgot to complete the sentence: "The other is also the only chance for heaven." Uzi Hitman was more right than the French thinker: "Without you I am half human, without you - I am basically nothing."

Despite criticism of the marriage and their decline as the company's growth engine and cornerstone, no proper replacements have emerged in their place. The old-fashioned glam option has not settled in hearts, and although the polyamory have tried to legalize adultery - in the meantime I do not see a mass influx into this enlightened arrangement. We will wait a few hundred years and see. 

Even if adultery failed to reach an alternative equivalent to marriage - its status was nevertheless upgraded. In my youth, adultery was denounced on the two tablets of the covenant in their own right, and here I was privileged to live in a time when it was so trivial that in some circles it was not considered a material breach of the marriage agreement.

This week the Supreme Court convened for the second time, to hear the appeal of a woman who betrayed her husband, and yet seeks a share in the plot that her betrayed husband inherited even before their marriage. The rabbinical court in general, among other reasons for rejecting her request, also counted the fact that she had betrayed her husband. The Supreme Court, composed of three judges, chose not to reverse the ruling of the Rabbinical Court and will now expand the panel to hear another appeal, filed by the woman, plus an army of human rights organizations and women. Because there is no women's right more important than cheating on your husband without paying a price.

I will not expand on the legal issue of common property, separate property and intent to share property. Talented legal minds from me are sitting on the bench. But the legal mind also has a worldview, and this affects the extent of its ability to stretch the compound of reasonableness. Thus, I suppose, someone who sticks his head in infidelity will probably have a hard time seeing the connection between fidelity and rights in the common property, or at least prefer the woman's financial rights over the expectation of a husband that his wife will not betray him. Not because he is primitive, but because he is married.

The heart goes out to the husband who finds himself in front of a progressive and enlightened bunch like Supreme Court justices. These have over the years disrupted the right to private property, even in the family setting. And here it is not worth rejoicing too much, since women also sometimes come to marriage with private property that they keep for themselves, and they too can find themselves over the years giving up half in favor of a betrayed husband.

Unfortunately, I did not climb the steps of progress enough. Therefore the court will decide what it decides, my verdict will not change: it is better to get married than to be single. Except in extreme cases - it is better not to divorce. And do not betray your spouse. And if you still fulfilled the dream, and followed your heart - well, then what is half a plot compared to all these.