Lawyers
Common-Law Partners in Israel
Because Israel has not established a clear separation of religion and state, and the Knesset has been unable to legislate civil marriage for political and religious reasons, the legal institution of common-law partnership — known in Hebrew as “publicly known” (yeduim ba-tzibur) — has become an essential alternative framework for couples.
Since the definition of “common-law partnership” does not appear explicitly in Israeli statute, the determination of whether a couple qualifies as common-law partners is made on a case-by-case basis through a series of established legal tests.
Common-law partnership is a legal concept describing a couple who share their lives together as a married couple without being formally married. In Israel, the development of this institution can be traced to Section 3 of the Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law, 5713-1953, which provides that marriages and divorces between Jews must be conducted according to Torah law. As a result, couples who wish to marry or divorce must do so through the rabbinical court system.
Marriage and Divorce in Israel Require Rabbinical Court Proceedings
The term “publicly known” was first used by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1948 to describe a person who lived with a partner without being formally married. Over time, the concept evolved, and both partners came to be recognized as common-law spouses — establishing a well-defined legal status.
According to Supreme Court judge Zvi Branson, public figures possess the following characteristics: In this case, two elements are involved: married life as husband and wife, as well as the running of a joint household. This first element consists of an intimate relationship between a husband and wife based on the same affection and love, devotion and loyalty that ties them together. In this way, this relationship differs from the life of concubines, for example, where the man maintains a lover or a friend primarily to achieve sexual satisfaction in the bosom of a woman, as well as providing him with a place of refuge from an oppressive marriage and an unsuccessful life; Likewise, the concubine - with her, the material condition and social status of the man who serves as her patron and reciprocator of kindness usually occupy a prominent position, and she reciprocates by giving him physical favors in return. The second element relates to managing a shared household. לא סתם משק בית משותף מתוך צורך אישי, נוחות, כדאיות כספית או סידור ענייני, אלא כפועל יוצא טבעי Not just a shared household that is created for personal convenience, financial viability, or business purposes, but as a natural consequence of joint family life, such as when a husband and wife adhere to each other in a bond of life destiny and the wife acts as the head of the household. מחיי המשפחה המשותפים, כנהוג וכמקובל בין בעל ואשה הדבקים אחד בשני בקשר של גורל חיים והאשה משמשת לו עקרת בית. In contrast, such a joint household differs from employing a maid or a nanny even when the employer has sex with her. In such a situation, the woman may still do housework and look after the man's affairs, but this is part of a business arrangement through which she receives a portion of the remuneration and alimony at the residence of her employer.
In a landmark Supreme Court case (Nicole Lindorn v. Karnit, RA 200/97), the court addressed whether an unmarried couple living together as spouses maintains a conjugal relationship that creates rights and obligations toward third parties. The court ruled that a partner who maintains an intimate relationship and shares a household with another person may be recognized as a common-law spouse. These two factual elements — an intimate relationship and a shared household — are the defining criteria for common-law status.
A subsequent ruling further strengthened the legal standing of common-law partnerships. In Bar Nehor v. Austerlich, the High Court held that inheritance law does not permit conditional maintenance on estates. Therefore, even if a couple signed an agreement stating they are not common-law partners, such an agreement is not valid if the factual conditions of a common-law partnership exist.
In ABD 59/03 (Gabriela Saban v. National Insurance Institute), Vice President Elisheva Barak held that even when a couple does not share the same residence, all relevant factors must be considered in determining whether they qualify as common-law partners. This ruling opened the door to recognition of non-conventional relationship arrangements for the purpose of qualifying for National Insurance benefits.
In Case 418-12-2008, the courts ruled that a conjugal partnership is a factual partnership between individuals who have entered into an agreement — whether expressly or by implication. The key issue is the parties’ intent to share their lives in a binding manner, analogous to marriage. Accordingly, the court moved beyond a purely factual test to an agreement-based test, examining whether the couple intended to create a binding relationship with implications for third parties as a result of establishing a shared household.
In Case 028593/06, the Family Court rejected a man’s request to summarily dismiss a maintenance claim filed by a woman who alleged she was his former common-law partner. The court held that even absent a written agreement, cohabitation may give rise to an implied “cohabitation agreement” — derived from the conduct of the relationship and the principle of freedom of contract under general law. The court ruled that there is no specific legislation governing common-law partners’ rights; therefore, the rights and obligations between partners must be addressed at the contractual level. Today, a relationship between partners — including same-sex couples — appears to be governed by mutual consent and commitment. It is the shared life itself that creates a contractual basis for claiming spousal maintenance, including the duty not to neglect the other partner.
The Sharing Doctrine
Under the sharing doctrine, partners are presumed to agree that from the moment they begin living together, all assets accumulated during the relationship will be shared equally — based on their joint effort and shared lifestyle.
In RA 8791/00 (Shalom v. Twinco), Justice Barak expanded the applicability of the sharing doctrine, holding that partners who maintain a normal shared lifestyle and joint effort are entitled to equal division of accumulated assets — even when the property is registered solely under one partner’s name. Nevertheless, this presumption, which is based on the partners’ implied consent, can be rebutted. The burden of proof falls on the party claiming the sharing doctrine does not apply.
Under the sharing doctrine, each partner holds a quasi-proprietary right to receive half of the jointly accumulated assets in kind. This right may be asserted at any time. It is the date on which the relationship between the partners breaks down that terminates the presumption of sharing.
Financial Agreements for Common-Law Partners
Couples recognized by the National Insurance Institute as common-law partners are treated identically to married couples. This recognition is one of the most significant expressions of their legal status. It means that all rights and obligations that the National Insurance Institute grants to and imposes on married couples apply equally to common-law partners.
Under Israeli inheritance law, in the absence of a detailed will, a person’s property is divided equally between the surviving spouse and the deceased’s direct descendants — with the spouse receiving half and the children receiving the other half. When a couple divorces, property is divided pursuant to the Property Relations Between Spouses Law. If a financial agreement exists, the property is divided according to its terms. If no such agreement was made, the statutory provisions of the Property Relations Law apply.
At every stage of the relationship — both during the partnership and after separation — it is advisable to prepare a financial agreement between common-law partners to clearly regulate their financial rights and obligations.
Common-law partners enter into contractual agreements in a manner similar to married couples. However, since the property-sharing regime that applies to common-law partners is the sharing doctrine rather than the Property Relations Law, a financial agreement between common-law partners must be approved by the family court.
It is critically important to prepare a financial agreement, particularly for common-law partners, as it establishes the parties’ legal status and protects the future interests of their children and heirs. Unlike married couples, common-law partners do not benefit from the same level of state-supported legal protections. A well-drafted agreement can also prove valuable in dealings with third parties, such as creditors, and with government agencies including the National Insurance Institute and the Tax Authority.
The Family Law Department at Mor & Co. Law Firm has extensive experience drafting financial agreements for common-law partners. Our firm also handles litigation related to proving common-law status and protecting the rights of common-law couples. We are committed to providing sensitive, personalized legal guidance while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism — ensuring the best possible outcome for every client.