You are kidding?
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle (2 Tess 2:14)St. Paul taught the Thessalonians Jewish law?
"παράδοσίς" simply meand knowledge or practice handed down. whether it is good or bad depends on the knowledge and practce in question. When the Apostles hand something down, it is good. It makes no difference whether they write a letter or teach face to face; if anything, St Paul preferred appearing in person. When Luther and the rest of the Protestant charlatans hand down their nonsense it is bad, and the Bible wanrs agaisnt such "traditions of men". It is not complicated.
"St. Paul taught the Thessalonians Jewish law?"
Absolutely. You must read Acts 17:10-13
Paul went before the Bereans and was delighted to see that they "searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether [the things that Paul taught] were so." He found them "more fair-minded than the Thessalonicans". So what we see here is that Paul would have the Thessalonicans to understand Jewish law so that they could confirm the truth that Paul was teaching.
John 5:39"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
So our LORD said that the Jewish Law was all about Him, and in Him is eternal life. So of course Paul would encourage the people to read Scriptures.
Lets return to that passage you brought up earlier about "All Scripture being profitable for doctrine...", particularly the language preceding that summary statement.
2 Tim 3:13-15 "But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Again, Paul exorts Timothy to know the Scriptures - that is, the OT, aka "Jewish Law" since the gospels had yet to be written and passed around.
It seems to me is that you are making a distinction between 'παραδόεις' and 'πατρικαι παραδόεις'. Which is fine, because I would like to see how you harmonize your personal defintion with how its used in Galatians 1:14.
If you make a distinction betweeen the two by assigning the use I offered to 'πατρικαι παραδόεις' then you are back to the bigger problem of refining your "Traditions" so that they are only a function of emulating the Apostles, which is what is left when you start parsing words.
The thing is, you being part of the Rome should know that as part of the fruit of Vatican II you have Dei Verbum that has a different definition than yours for Holy Tradition. Quite frankly its even quite different from the early Church fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian. The fundamental weak spot that holds the whole concept together is the flawed idea that Sacred Tradition "remains always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles". In Dei Verbatum (n.10), the council decided that this is really limited to "common life, in the breaking of bread and in prayers". I don't see room in there for Holy Tradition to declare by fiat that Mary died a virgin. That is Vatican II speaking to you, not me. So who is correct? V2 or its predecessors? And if they differ, what does do to the "remain steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles"? A contradiction can't "remain steadfast".
How do you know with certainty what the are the traditions of men and what are the traditions of God?