{"id":12219,"date":"2026-07-12T00:03:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-11T21:03:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/?p=12219"},"modified":"2026-08-05T14:10:36","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T11:10:36","slug":"17-12-03","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-03\/","title":{"rendered":"03. Syria"},"content":{"rendered":"
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\u2019s 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\u201313; 10:16\u201319).<\/p>\n
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\u2019ei (Bamidbar 34), whereas David conquered Syria before conquering Jerusalem, which was then controlled by the Yevusites (Sifrei<\/em>, 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 ya\u1e25id<\/em>, an \u201cindividual conquest\u201d \u2013 a conquest undertaken to strengthen his kingdom, not to settle the Land.<\/p>\n Because Syria had been conquered outside the proper order, its halakhic status became disputed. According to R. Meir, even kibbush ya\u1e25id<\/em> is halakhically effective by Torah law; therefore, Syria became subject to the land-dependent mitzvot by Torah law. One must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> there by Torah law, and one may not sell a house there to a non-Jew. According to R. Yose, however, kibbush ya\u1e25id<\/em> does not give Syria the full status of the Land. The land-dependent mitzvot therefore apply there only by rabbinic enactment, including terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>, and when necessary, one may sell a house there to a non-Jew. The halakha follows R. Yose (Gittin<\/em> 8a\u2013b; Avoda Zara<\/em> 21a; MT, Laws of Idolatry 10:3).<\/p>\n 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<\/em> in order to complete the purchase (MT, Laws of Shabbat 6:11). [4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n