Are you referring to the rivash? Who argues?
Not following your train of thought. I was working with the Rav Akiva Eigar/Rivash and assuming it is a problem, and wondering why it should be different if a אומר מותר does it for someone else.
How are you explaining the difference?
Realized that I totally missed this post of yours……
No I wasn’t referring to anyone who is arguing with the Rivash.
The point I was trying to make was this. All the Rivash and RAE are mechadesh is that being mevatel למי שרוצה לקנות is as if it is בשבילו.
Now when we are talking about a case where a yid is the mevatel then if it was במזיד there is room for a knas שלא יהנו מעשיו הרעים but when it is done בשוגג a knas isn’t warranted.
This as said is when the mevatel is a Yid but when the mevatel is a non Jew who has no issur for himself then knas doesn’t apply. The issur of instructing him to do it for you is that when instructing him it is as if you yourself are doing it, and then this idea is extrapolated by some poskim to a case he did it for the yid but without the yid specifically instructing him to do it (for example he does it for him since he wants the yid to buy it from him….).
According to this אומר מותר shouldn’t be a problem since we are talking about a yid being mevatel and since he is considered a שוגג no knas is applied.
Why the reasons should be different is something I don’t fully understand but so it seems from the way the Poskim put it.
Now there is an additional twist to this. There is a disagreement between the poskim whether the issur of מי שנתבטל בשבילו is only when it is ניחא ליה or even when it isn’t. It is explained that this depends on the two reasons for the knas if it was on the מבטל- שלא יהנו מעשיו הרעים or on whom it was done for דחיישינן שיבואו אנשים לצוות לבטל. If the second option would be true then here too by אומר מותר the one who it was done for should get a knas if it were במזיד as the כתב סופר points out…..