Rashi on Amira (L'Akum?)

Rashi on Exodus 12:16 seems problematic:

And on the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day you shall have a holy convocation; no work may be performed on them, but what is eaten by any soul that alone may be performed for you.		טז. וּבַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל מְלָאכָה לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה בָהֶם אַךְ אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל לְכָל נֶפֶשׁ הוּא לְבַדּוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה לָכֶם:
no work may be performed on them: even through others. — [from Mechilta]		לא יעשה בהם: אפילו על ידי אחרים:

At first I thought Rashi's question was the purpose of telling us here that one may not do work on the festival of Passover, if it already called it "holy", like Shabbat. However, previously in the verse, Rashi uses the name "holy" to indicate the spirit of the day - eating, drinking, clothing. So what was he answering towards?

In most other cases of the Torah telling us that one may not do work, it puts it in the command or future. "Kol melacha lo taasu", etc. However, here, it is in the passive. "Work shall not be done." So it indicates that work is being done on behalf of someone, which is forbidden. Rashi points that out with his comment, "Cannot be done" - "Not even through others".

Who does this "others" refer to? Ramban asks the question well. First he quotes Rashi, and then writes:

ולא הבינותי זה, שאם האחרים האלו ישראל, הם עצמן מוזהרין עליה, ואין אני מוזהר במלאכתי שלא תעשה על ידו, אלא שאם מטעה אותו באסור, מוזהר עליה משום ולפני עור לא תיתן מכשול (ויקרא יט יד), בין במלאכתו בין במלאכת העושה עצמו. ואם אחרים הללו גויים, אין אנו מוזהרים בתורה על מלאכה של גוי כלל לא ביום טוב ולא בשבת, אלא שיש בה שבות מדבריהם עם האמירה שלנו, כמו שאמרו אמירה לגוי שבות (שבת קנ א), וזה דבר מבואר בגמרא:

I do not understand this, for if "others" refers to Jews, they themselves are prohibited regarding this, and I am not prohibited [so as to make sure] that my work not be done through him. If, rather, it is [referring to a Jew] that he tricks into transgression, he is prohibited through (Leviticus 19:14) "Do not place a stumbling block in front of a blind person..." [which applies] whether it is [the tricker's] work or his own work. And if "others" refers to gentiles, we are not prohibited by the Torah from the work of a gentile at all, whether on the festival or on Shabbat, for rather it is a "shevut" rabbinical prohibition on our requesting, as they say (Talmud Shabbat 150a) "Requesting of a gentile [to do work for you] is a 'shevut'," which is explained in the Talmud.

The Ramban goes on to answer for Rashi (/Mechilta) that he was referring specifically to gentiles, and that his comment was not meant as a proof of "amira l'akum min hatorah", but rather an "asmachta b'alma", just a support for the idea from the Torah.

Tosafot in Daat Zekeinim give this answer as well. But then suggest another answer. Remember, Ramban rejects the possibility that Rashi was referring to Jews because they themselves are not allowed to do work. The Daat Zekeinim (and the Rosh in the name of his father) suggest that it could be Jews, but specifically those that aren't commanded - children and the like. However, they themselves admit it is very difficult because we are commanded explicitly by the Torah to let our children rest in regards to Shabbat. So why would we need this verse to imply it? They suggest that we need both because Shabbat is stricter than the festivals, where we might think that we can have our children do work on the festivals because it is more lax. But that too is problematic, because we do not find it so lax except for certain cases. In most ways, they are exactly the same.

Chavel quotes the Beer Avraham approvingly that the "others" refers to Jews, but specifically sinners who break Shabbat anyway (so there's no problem of placing a stumbling block if you ask them to do work for you). But wait, didn't Ramban say that it can't be we are prohibited from benefiting from a sinner? He sure did, but I think the oylam disagrees.