Beyond the territory conquered by Moshe and Yehoshua, where the twelve tribes had settled, King David later conquered Syria. Syria included areas within the borders of Eretz Yisrael, such as Aram Damascus, as well as areas beyond those borders, such as Aram Naharayim, between the Euphrates and the Tigris. David’s aim was to subdue enemies who might threaten the nation in the future. Rather than allow hostile kingdoms to develop there, he appointed governors who collected tribute, thereby strengthening his kingdom (2 Shmuel 8:3–13; 10:16–19).
The Sages said that this conquest was not carried out in the proper order. The mitzva was first to conquer all the land of Canaan within the borders described in Parashat Mas’ei (Bamidbar 34), whereas David conquered Syria before conquering Jerusalem, which was then controlled by the Yevusites (Sifrei, Ekev 51). Apparently, David departed from the proper order because he did not intend to designate Syria for Jewish settlement; at that time, the Jewish people had not yet properly settled the areas inherited in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. He reasoned that since he was conquering Syria only to subdue enemies and collect tribute for the kingdom, this would not be considered a violation of the proper order. For this reason, his conquest is called kibbush yaḥid, an “individual conquest” – a conquest undertaken to strengthen his kingdom, not to settle the Land.
Because Syria had been conquered outside the proper order, its halakhic status became disputed. According to R. Meir, even kibbush yaḥid is halakhically effective by Torah law; therefore, Syria became subject to the land-dependent mitzvot by Torah law. One must separate terumot and ma’asrot there by Torah law, and one may not sell a house there to a non-Jew. According to R. Yose, however, kibbush yaḥid does not give Syria the full status of the Land. The land-dependent mitzvot therefore apply there only by rabbinic enactment, including terumot and ma’asrot, and when necessary, one may sell a house there to a non-Jew. The halakha follows R. Yose (Gittin 8a–b; Avoda Zara 21a; MT, Laws of Idolatry 10:3).
Even so, Syria is not treated simply as outside the Land. Since all territories up to the Euphrates are within the broader borders of Eretz Yisrael, there is a mitzva to settle them and purchase homes there. The mitzva to settle these areas is significant enough that if the opportunity to purchase a house there arises on Shabbat, a Jew may even set aside a rabbinic prohibition classified as shevut in order to complete the purchase (MT, Laws of Shabbat 6:11). [4]
[4]. Sifrei, Ekev 51, explains that David “acted not in accordance with the Torah,” for the Torah required the nation first to conquer all the land of Canaan, including Jerusalem. David, however, conquered Syria before conquering the Yevusites, who lived on Mount Moriah near his palace in the City of David. Because the conquest was done out of order, Syria received an intermediate status. This is also cited by Tosafot, Rashba, and Ritva.
The Sages referred to David’s conquest as kibbush yaḥid. Rashi explains that it was called this because the entire nation was not there together, and because David conquered it for his own needs rather than for the needs of the whole nation (Rashi, Gittin 8b). Rashi’s intent seems to be that David did not conquer Syria in order to settle the Land, but in order to collect tribute and strengthen his kingdom, as the verses state that David stationed governors there (2 Shmuel 8:6).
Rambam, following the Sifrei, writes that Syria did not receive the full sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, because David had not yet conquered all the land of the seven nations – the land of Canaan – even though his conquest of Syria had been authorized by the court (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:3). Though other Rishonim write that David conquered Syria without the court’s authorization (Ramban to Devarim 11:24; Ritva, Avoda Zara 21a), these views need not disagree. Presumably, David consulted the Sanhedrin before conquering Syria, as he generally did before going to war (see Berakhot 3b), which accords with Rambam. The consultation, however, concerned the security need, not the proper order of conquering and settling the Land. Thus, although David’s intentions and actions were proper, his conquest created a halakhic complication: he had departed from the proper order, and it was not clear that Syria was being conquered for Jewish settlement.
Rambam explains that “Syria” is a halakhic category that includes territory on both sides of the Land’s broader border. It includes areas within the broader borders of Eretz Yisrael, whose northern border reaches the Euphrates, such as Aram Damascus. It also includes areas beyond those borders, such as Aram Naharayim beyond the Euphrates and north of Hor Ha-har in northern Aram Tzova (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:3–4, 9; Peninei Halakha: Ha-am Ve-ha-Aretz 3:16).
Had David first conquered all the borders described in Parashat Mas’ei, even areas beyond the Land would have become sanctified, as it says: “Every place upon which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours” (Devarim 11:24), as explained in Sifrei, Ekev 51.
According to all views, Syria has an intermediate status (Ramban to Devarim 11:24). Even according to the view that kibbush yaḥid can be effective by Torah law, the Gemara explains that the Sages treated Syria like territory outside the Land in three respects, one of which is that the rabbinic decree of impurity that applies to lands outside the Land applies to Syria as well (Gittin 8a–b). According to R. Yose, whose view is accepted as halakha, kibbush yaḥid does not confer the full status of conquest (Avoda Zara 21a; MT, Laws of Idolatry 10:3). Even so, one must separate terumot and ma’asrot in Syria by rabbinic enactment. Since the obligation is rabbinic, however, produce grown on land acquired by a non-Jew in Syria is not subject to this obligation, even if a Jew later completed the produce’s preparation (Gittin 47a; MT, Laws of Terumot 1:4, 15).
Even according to R. Yose, purchasing a house in Syria fulfills the mitzva of settling the Land (MT, Laws of Shabbat 6:11). It seems that this applies specifically to the part of Syria that lies within the borders of the Land.
The authorities disagree regarding ma’aser sheni in Syria. According to Rambam (MT, Laws of Ma’aser 1:14) and SA, YD 331:131, Syria was not included in the rabbinic obligation of ma’aser sheni. Since ma’aser sheni from Syria cannot be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there – just as a firstborn animal from Syria cannot be brought to Jerusalem and offered – the Sages did not impose ma’aser sheni there. By contrast, according to Raavad, Rashba, and the Vilna Gaon (Bi’ur Ha-Gra 331:197), one must separate ma’aser sheni from produce grown in Syria as well. It is then redeemed, and the redemption money is brought to Jerusalem.
