I want to share a few comments on the Keseph Mishna in trumot chapter 1 law 10. The Rambam writes that if a gentile owns land in Israel, and a Jew buys the land from him then the its produce is obligated in truma from the Torah. the Keseph Mishna says one can understand this to be like the opinion a gentile cannot own land in Israel in such a way that removes the obligation of truma. The other way is that the Rambam is going like the opinion gentile can own land in such a way that he removes the obligateion of truma. In either case, the Keseph Mishna holds the produce is not obligated in anything until the Jew buys theprodduce (and land) back. But even then, to both opinions, we do not know what would be the law if only the produce was bought by the Jew and the land remained in the possession of the gentile. And at any rate, each opinion remains as clarified in the gemara in terms of the third growth or smoothing. To the opinion a gentile cannot take away the obligation of truma , to be obligated in truma the produce (and land) has to be owned by a Jew, and the smoothing of the stack needs to be done by a Jew. To the opinion a gentile can take away the obligation of truma, the only time there can be an obligation of truma is when a third grow was in the possession of a Jew and the produce (and land) need to be owned by a Jew at that point in time.----------------I want to share a few comments on the כסף משנה in trumot chapter 1 law 10. The רמב''ם writes that if a gentile owns land in Israel, and a Jew buys the land from him then the its produce is obligated in תרומה from the מן התורה. The כסף משנה says one can understand this to be like the opinion a gentile cannot own land in Israel in such a way that removes the obligation of תרומה. The other way is that the Rambam is going like the opinion gentile can own land in such a way that he removes the obligation of תרומה. In either case the כסף משנה holds the produce is not obligated in anything until the Jew buys the land back. But even then, to both opinions we do not know what would be the law if only the produce was bought by the Jew and the land remained in the possession of the gentile. And at any rate each opinion remains as clarified in the גמראin terms of the third growth or smoothing. to the opinion a gentile cannot take away the obligation of תרומה , to be obligated in תרומה the land has to be owned by a Jew and the smoothing of the stack needs to be done by a Jew. To the opinion a gentile can take away the obligation of תרומה ,the only time there can be an obligation of תרומה is when a third growth was in the possession of a Jew, and the produce and land need to be owned by a Jew at that point in time.