"Against the background of the tendency to relax the rules of the admissibility of evidence, and to focus on the question of the reliability and weight of the evidence (Criminal Appeal 4178/10 Faraj v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (August 19, 2013) (hereinafter: the Faraj case); Civil Appeal 4814/09 Tempo Beer Industries in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (December 22, 2010)), as well as in view of technological development, which made it possible to present copies of documents identical to the original, further undermined the status of the "best evidence" rule. Further to this trend, case law has determined that the content of a document can be proven by copying it - i.e., secondary evidence - to the extent that the party concerned provides a proper reason for not presenting the original document (Snir; Civil Appeal 6205/98 Unger v. Ofer, IsrSC 55(5) 71 (2001)). In fact, the rule took root in case law that "in the absence of concern for the reliability 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" (Civil Appeal 9622/07 Holin v. Clalit Health Fund of the General Histadrut of Workers in the Land of Israel, [published in Nevo], paragraph 25 of the judgment (May 30, 2010). See also: Civil Appeal 2449/08 Toashi v. Mercantile Discount Bank in a Tax Appeal [published in Nevo] (November 16, 2010); Criminal Appeal 3974/92 Azoulay v. State of Israel, IsrSC 47(2) 565 (1993))."
I will note that these rulings of the Supreme Court in a particular case were based, inter alia, on the rulings of the Supreme Court in the Snir case, where it was held that the rule of best evidence no longer applies as a rule of admissibility, but rather embodies a consideration in the court's examination of the weight that should be given to evidence, even if it is secondary evidence, while examining its credibility and reliability (Criminal Appeal 869/81 Snir v. State of Israel [Nevo] (November 4, 1984)).