Michael wrote:

Haha, nicely put.
Funny, very funny—but I saw that Rabbi Aviner discussed this in full seriousness. Truly ridiculous.
And maybe this is yet another consequence of the common phenomenon of losing common sense among the thinkers of the study hall.

Why “loss of common sense”? For someone who is careful about this, the question is quite natural.

I’m not familiar with Rabbi Aviner’s discussion. One should distinguish between a hypothetical Torah discussion, which sometimes requires impractical and even bizarre questions, and a discussion in a halakhic context. Context is everything.
I addressed this in my response to David Assaf’s blog a few years ago: http://onegshabbat.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/blog-post_6404.html
See there my response, the responses to it, and my second one.

By the way, as I explained there (and we devoted an entire book in the Talmudic Logic series to the Platonic character of the Talmud, and there I explained all this), there is value to such a discussion if its purpose is not clarifying this Jewish law itself, but rather if the situation sharpens a relevant halakhic or meta-halakhic question. I don’t know whether that was the case here, since I didn’t see the discussion.

Obviously, the distinction is clear. It was the “practical Jewish law” aspect that I was objecting to.

The Rashba came only so that we would read your words there—we were privileged.

To Michael:
I find it hard to believe that Rabbi Aviner discussed this. I’d be happy to get a link.

To Michael:
I’m having a hard time believing that Rabbi Aviner discussed this. I’d be happy to get a link.

I’ll try to look for it later, God willing.

If this trick is valid, it seems to me a waste not to use it much more broadly:
The Ashkenazi can transfer ownership of his body to a gentile, and then leavened food on Passover would also become permitted to him.
If he’s vegan, he can sell his body to a lion, and then he’ll be allowed to eat meat.
Or perhaps to the Wizard of Oz, and then he can act like the ruler of the globe.

With Heaven’s help, 28 Adar 5778

I have not merited to understand how a Jew can transfer himself to another through bodily ownership, for all Israel are owned, body and soul, by their Maker and Redeemer, who wrote in His Torah: “For the children of Israel are servants to Me”; and our Sages expounded: “They are My servants, and not servants to servants.” For that reason, in the case of a Hebrew slave there is no ownership of the body, only an obligation to work for his master.

The only case of a person obligated in the commandments for whom there is “ownership of the body” is a Canaanite slave, whose body is owned by his master. But it would seem obvious that he is obligated to follow his master’s customs: if his master is Ashkenazi, legumes would be forbidden to the slave; and if his master is Sephardi, legumes would be permitted to the slave.

With blessings, the humble one, Samson Zvi Levinger, may his Rock preserve him [which, according to Rabbi Cherki’s words, stands for: “pure Ashkenazi”].

With Heaven’s help, 28 Adar 5778

Surely a Jew, and even a Hebrew slave, cannot transfer himself to any person through “ownership of the body,” as explained in the Torah: “For the children of Israel are servants to Me,” and our Sages expounded: “They are My servants—and not servants to servants.” Only in the case of a Canaanite slave is there “ownership of the body,” and there it is obvious that he must adopt his master’s customs.

May it be His will that we merit to serve our Creator with joy and gladness of heart, and celebrate the Festival of Matzot with rejoicing!

With blessings, S.Z. Levinger

And an Ashkenazi can sell himself to a Yemeni and marry wives as he pleases…

See Kiddushin 16a and 28a: a Hebrew slave—his body is owned.

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me” is a prohibition, not a categorical determination. A Hebrew slave can choose to have his ear pierced and violate it.