Background
The Supreme Court registrar addressed filings in two related civil appeals involving the heirs of the late Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik, the heirs of the late Rebbetzin Shifra Sylvia Schik, Ash BeLev Kodesh Ltd., Yismach Tzadik—Breslov Community in the Galilee, government registrars, The Schik Dynasty LLC, the Land Registrar, and a former temporary estate administrator. The decision concerned an August 19 clarification, an August 20 request to submit an affidavit, and a September 6 application.
Following an August 14 order, counsel submitted powers of attorney from an heir of the first two appellants and from the third appellant. An inconsistency remained, however: the power of attorney authorized counsel to act for the third appellant, while the updated opening page identified that entity as a respondent rather than an appellant.
The Court’s Holding
Registrar Moran Yahav directed the court registry to update counsel’s details for the relevant heir, if it had not already done so. She also ordered counsel, by October 8, 2026, to clarify on whose behalf the appeal was filed and to address the arguments raised in paragraphs 1–6 of the opposing party’s application.
The registrar rejected the request to admit Rabbi Moshe Schik’s affidavit. The affidavit was offered in support of requests that had already been rejected on their merits in the August 14 order—namely, requests to compel Yismach Tzadik to produce powers of attorney and to require its committee members personally to deposit security. The affidavit therefore did not justify changing that order. In light of this disposition, the registrar found no need to address the objection that the affidavit constituted new evidence or to obtain the parties’ responses previously contemplated by another registrar.
The registrar declined, at this stage, to award costs to Yismach Tzadik.
Key Takeaways
- A power of attorney does not eliminate the need to identify consistently and clearly which parties are bringing an appeal.
- An affidavit supporting requests already rejected on their merits will not, without more, warrant reconsideration of the earlier ruling.
- The registrar rejected the procedural application but made no costs order at this stage.
Why It Matters
The decision is procedural and does not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute. It underscores that appellate counsel must establish authority to act and ensure that the notice and opening papers consistently identify each party’s status.
It also illustrates the limited utility of submitting additional evidence after the court has already rejected the underlying requests on substantive grounds: unless the new material provides a basis to revisit that ruling, the court may refuse to receive it without reaching separate objections concerning new evidence.