Here you demonstrate that you are ignoring the context because you limit the section to he about ONLY ceremonial washings. Food laws is a part of the ceremonial laws. Therefore, you skewer your position with the answers that you post.
Please tell us exactly why the food laws are significant. Is that there will be a greater reward for those who eat kosher, or do you not follow kosher, in favor of something else?
Did you read the context?
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples
transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines
the commandments of men.
Didn't bother going to the parallel account did you?
Mar 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with
defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Nothing to do with the food laws. Show me ceremonial washings up to the elbows in Lev 11 and Deut 14.
Mar 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him,
Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
We are not dealing with food laws here, we are dealing with the Pharisees traditions of washing in a certain way.
Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Christ goes on here to show how they violated the Commandment to honor their parents by declaring help for their parents Corban. What this means is they denied whatever they might help their parents with by saying it was dedicated to God. This way they could make a show of religiosity and actually violate a Commandment for their own ego.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
Mar 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
Mar 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mar 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Now, what Christ is talking about here is the dirt that may get into the food you eta will not cause spiritual harm, but the actions you take toward others can. This passage is not about meat...
From Barclay...
There were definite and rigid rules for the washing of hands. Note that this hand-washing was not in the interests of hygienic purity; it was ceremonial cleanness which was at stake. Before every meal, and between each of the courses, the hands had to be washed, and they had to be washed in a certain way. The hands, to begin with, had to be free of any coating of sand or mortar or gravel or any such substance. The water for washing had to be kept in special large stone jars, so that it itself was clean in the ceremonial sense and so that it might be certain that it had been used for no other purpose, and that nothing had fallen into it or had been mixed with it. First, the hands were held with finger tips pointing upwards; water was poured over them and had to run at least down to the wrist; the minimum amount of water was one quarter of a log, which is equal to one and a half egg-shells full of water. While the hands were still wet each hand had to be cleansed with the fist of the other. That is what the phrase about using the fist means; the fist of one hand was rubbed into the palm and against the surface of the other. This meant that at this stage the hands were wet with water; but that water was now unclean because it had touched unclean hands. So, next, the hands had to be held with finger tips pointing downwards and water had to be poured over them in such a way that it began at the wrists and ran off at the finger tips. After all that had been done the hands were clean.
To fail to do this was in Jewish eyes, not to be guilty of bad manners, not to be dirty in the health sense, but to be unclean in the sight of God. The man who ate with unclean hands was subject to the attacks of a demon called Shibta. To omit so to wash the hands was to become liable to poverty and destruction. Bread eaten with unclean hands was not better than excrement. A Rabbi who once omitted the ceremony was buried in excommunication. Another Rabbi, imprisoned by the Romans, used the water given to him for handwashing rather than for drinking and in the end nearly perished of thirst, because he was determined to observe the rules of cleanliness rather than satisfy his thirst.
Read the scriptures, get the context, read the parallel accounts and hit your knees.
I quoted Barclay here because I feel he did a good job getting to the crux of the matter. I do not recommend or trust commentaries, they are written by men. Sure they are experts, but if they are correct, why do the disagree on many points? If they were the last word, they would all be in agreement but they are not.