However we can say a chiddush. When the psak of the זקן ממרא relates to a case which is inherently - במהותו - a כרת case such as "זבה" [that the Gemara in Sanhedrin is talking about] with respect to someone who has ביאה with her and טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, we need that there to be some sort of "קלקול" [damage or corruption] and "פאשלה" from this psak in order to be מחייב him מיתה. But this "קלקול" need not actually cause a חיוב כרת in practice [בפועל]. It is enough that it causes problems such as the fact that due to his psak this loaf will no longer be worth a פרוטה in people's eyes and will cause the annulment of the Kiddushin. In other words - the fact that it is a case that inherently involves a כרת combined with the fact that his psak causes problems, makes him חייב מיתה as a זקן ממרא.
But the Imrei Noam is talking about a case where the issue at hand is the אתרוג which is inherently NOT related to כרת, it will just evolve into a חיוב כרת if used for Kiddushin. In such a case the Imrei Noam said that when the זקן ממרא says [for example] that it is kosher, it is ultimately not HIS psak that makes it a שוה פרוטה but the "oilam's" mistake of following him. That is not enough to consider the psak of the ז"מ one that involves a חיוב כרת.
Even if we have gone TOO FAR and ANY קלקול won't do regarding a case that is inherently - במהותו - a חיוב כרת to make a ז"מ and thus lowering the market price and causing the Kiddushin to be annulled isn't enough, we can still say that if we are dealing with a case that is במהותו a חיוב כרת and the ז"מ causes an עבירה of a לא תעשה or עשה that suffices to make him a ז"מ and we don't need a קלקול that results in a כרת.
AWE-SOME BS"D.
More to come if Hashem gives life and simcha and the financial means.
[עפ"י תורת מו"ר שליט"א]
