With regard to the reading of the will, even before the beginning of his interrogation, the notary asked to tell the record that after reviewing the will the evening before the hearing, he found that there had been a clerical error in section 4 of the will and testified "The mitzva did not read to me, I read to her" (p. 6, paras. 12-14 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).
The notary later confirmed the existence of additional defects. Thus, he testified that the amount paid for the notarized certificate was not stated, even though the notary confirmed that it should be recorded (p. 8, 26-29 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021). The notary also confirmed that he did not register a notarized book from the beginning of his work as a notary until later on, and did not know how to indicate the date from which he began to keep such a book, and also confirmed that he did not specify a serial number on the will and could not answer the registration number of the will in the Wills Register (p. 9, paras. 1-23 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).
The notary public was asked to explain why, among all the defects, he chose to correct the matter of reading the will at the beginning of his testimony and on his own initiative, and answered "Because I saw yesterday that there was a mistake here. I took this will yesterday after 17 years." "To the court's question as to why I chose to mention this specific mistake and not the other deficiencies as arose from my testimony, I reply, that is what I noticed, and that was it." (p. 9, s. 31-32, p. 10, s. 1-2).
The notary's explanation is reasonable and logical. As stated above, a distinction can be made between defects stemming from the requirements that apply to a notary only and defects in the components of the will specified in the Inheritance Law, and therefore it is logical and reasonable that this defect caught the notary's attention when he reviewed the will prior to the date of the hearing, and this does not impair the reliability or weight of his testimony, which was not concealed.
- Notwithstanding the aforesaid, it should be emphasized that the notary, as well as the plaintiffs, did not at any stage confirm the objections' claims that the deceased did not know how to read Hebrew. The notary denied that he knew that the deceased did not know how to read and testified that the deceased "She received a few more legal services from me before and after that. To the court's question as to why I thought yesterday that there was a mistake and she didn't read it, I answer: I don't know that she knows how to read and I also don't know that she doesn't know how to read, I asked do you want you to read the will or if I read it to you? She said, "Read me the will." (pp. 10, 3-10, and see p. 10, 30-32 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).
Here it should be emphasized that the plaintiffs claimed that the deceased knew how to read Hebrew and did not raise a claim regarding the manner in which the will was verified in their response, so that the notary's testimony that the amendment at the beginning of his testimony was spontaneous after he reviewed the will on the eve of the hearing was not contradicted.
- The notary clearly and coherently described the manner in which the deceased came to him and how she gave him her wishes:
"A few days before that, she was at my house on a Saturday. I sat with her in the garden and she told me that she wanted to make a will. She was alone. If I can explain why she suddenly came to me on Shabbat, can I explain? ... It's not that she came and said she wanted to make a will, she gave me everything she wanted to have in the will, it was different, she called me, she said she wanted to come to the office to make a will, I said I want before you come to the office I want to have a preliminary meeting with you so that you can say what you want to have in the will and I will save you from coming to me twice, you go to visit your sons every Saturday, You pass by my house, come, sit in the garden and say what you want..." (p. 8, paras. 1-10 of the minutes of the hearing of October 18, 2021).