[...]
However, on the side of the rule, which made it difficult to bring various evidence, and led, in certain circumstances, to distortions of law, exceptions developed. Thus, it was determined that secondary evidence would also be admissible, where the original document was lost or destroyed, without malicious intent, or where its submission entailed difficulties [...]
Moreover, against the background of the tendency to relax the rules of admissibility of evidence, and to focus on the question of the reliability and weight of the evidence [...] and in view of the technological development, which has made it possible to present copies of documents identical to the original, the status of the "best evidence" rule has been further undermined. In continuation of this trend, case law has determined that the content of a document can be proved by means of copying it - i.e., secondary evidence - to the extent that the party concerned provides a proper reason for not presenting the original document [...]. In fact, the rule has taken root in case law that "in the absence of concern about the credibility of the 'copy', the failure to bring the original document will not in itself erode the evidentiary basis of the party making use of it" [...].
[...]
Finally, attention must be paid to the fact that in case law there is no "hierarchy" of secondary evidence, which is likely to affect the question of its admissibility. In other words, a party may submit secondary evidence, even if it is claimed that its reliability is questionable, and refrain from submitting other secondary evidence, which is considered more reliable. This does not invalidate the submission of the secondary evidence, which is ostensibly less reliable (the Snir case). Even the type of secondary evidence, i.e., whether it is oral testimony about the content of the document or a written copy of it, does not determine the question of the admissibility of the evidence, and sometimes it is precisely the exact testimony of a witness about the contents of a document (which is the original evidence that is not available), that may be more reliable than an illegible copy of the document (Halevy, at p. 456). In other words, the nature and degree of reliability of the secondary evidence may find expression only in the question of the weight that will be given to the evidence, and this is at the end of the legal proceeding. This is true even where one secondary evidence is a "distant" copy of the original document, and the other secondary evidence is a "closer" copy of the original. The degree of "distance" of the copy from the original document does not affect the admissibility of the copy as secondary evidence (Halevy, ibid.).