The Imrei Noam said that the determining factor of the value of the אתרוג is the market value. If people are willing to pay a פרוטה or more, then he gave her something of value but if they are not then he gave her nothing,
One must note the opinion of Rashi [פסחים ז. ד"ה אפילו] that if someone is מקדש with איסורי הנאה מדרבנן she is not מקודשת because a person gets married subject to Rabbinic approval - כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש - and they uprooted this union because they rendered this object אסור בהנאה, meaning in Rabbinic parlance, אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה. The Ritva and Meiri challenged this explanation on the grounds that it is unnecessary. The moment you say that what he gave her is אסור בהנאה it emerges that he gave her nothing, so it is not necessary to go further and say כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה - that people get married subject to Rabbinic approval and they uprooted the Kiddushin.
The Avnei Miluim explains Rashi that there doesn't have to be practical הנאה and all that is necessary is that it be permitted for benefit מן התורה. Hence, if not for the סברא of כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש she would be married.
Now according to this it would appear that the same applies to an אתרוג that the Lord knows is kosher ["כלפי שמיא גליא"] but since the "oilam" relies on the invalidation [psul] of זקן ממרא, it doesn't sell. In such a case, if he is מקדש an אשה with this אתרוג she would be מקודשת because it is no less that איסורי הנאה מדרבנן that for all intents and purposes is worthless, nevertheless since מן התורה it is מותר בהנאה she is מקודשת [if not for the fact that כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש]. Now we can understand the question of the יד מלך on the Rambam: Let's say for example that the זקן ממרא paskened that the אתרוג is פסול. Granted that it is worthless on the market because the oilam relies on the psak of the ז"מ, nevertheless since the Lord knows [כלפי שמיא גליא] that the אתרוג is כשר, she is מקדשת, and if she is intimate with another man there is a חיוה כרת. So we see that with respect to an אתרוג there CAN be a חיוב כרת [in contrast to what the Rambam says that there is no ז"מ in the case of an אתרוג because there is no חיוב כרת].
However this is not so, because the יד מלך was working with the opinion of the Rambam. The Avnei Miluim writes that the opinion of the Rambam is that a woman must be able to receive practical benefit from the כסף קידושין, just as the Ritva and Meiri hold, that we don't need the reason of אדעא דרבנן מקדש, but rather since it is not worth anything on the free market she is not מקודשת because he essentially gave her nothing. If so, we can't explain the Rambam as the יד מלך aspired to do and thus the השגה of the Imrei Noam on the יד מלך is firmly back in place.
The Avnei Miluim explains Rashi that there doesn't have to be practical הנאה and all that is necessary is that it be permitted for benefit מן התורה. Hence, if not for the סברא of כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש she would be married.
Now according to this it would appear that the same applies to an אתרוג that the Lord knows is kosher ["כלפי שמיא גליא"] but since the "oilam" relies on the invalidation [psul] of זקן ממרא, it doesn't sell. In such a case, if he is מקדש an אשה with this אתרוג she would be מקודשת because it is no less that איסורי הנאה מדרבנן that for all intents and purposes is worthless, nevertheless since מן התורה it is מותר בהנאה she is מקודשת [if not for the fact that כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש]. Now we can understand the question of the יד מלך on the Rambam: Let's say for example that the זקן ממרא paskened that the אתרוג is פסול. Granted that it is worthless on the market because the oilam relies on the psak of the ז"מ, nevertheless since the Lord knows [כלפי שמיא גליא] that the אתרוג is כשר, she is מקדשת, and if she is intimate with another man there is a חיוה כרת. So we see that with respect to an אתרוג there CAN be a חיוב כרת [in contrast to what the Rambam says that there is no ז"מ in the case of an אתרוג because there is no חיוב כרת].
However this is not so, because the יד מלך was working with the opinion of the Rambam. The Avnei Miluim writes that the opinion of the Rambam is that a woman must be able to receive practical benefit from the כסף קידושין, just as the Ritva and Meiri hold, that we don't need the reason of אדעא דרבנן מקדש, but rather since it is not worth anything on the free market she is not מקודשת because he essentially gave her nothing. If so, we can't explain the Rambam as the יד מלך aspired to do and thus the השגה of the Imrei Noam on the יד מלך is firmly back in place.
ודו"ק היטב!!!
[עפ"י תורת מו"ר שליט"א]
