Maybe Matt. 15:1-9 helps. "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matt. 15:3.
"Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders?.."Matt. 15:2.
The tradition of the elders seems clearly what Jesus was defying. Jews held that the writings of the scribes were more important than those of the law and the prophets- "the words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets". Traditions were held to be the finishing touch to the Divine revelation.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt. 5:17.
The traditions were not listed there. Which is what He destroyed with the pharisees and saducees and scribes. The tradition of men built IMPLICITY on the law. imho
Tradition is what is added to the law by men. The Law was given by God through Moses and to Israel. Tradition was added by men to the Law, thus making tradition part of the spoken and unspoken Law of God. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not tradition. Therefore, Christ stood in defiance of Tradition. Because it came from men, not God. Therefore, He did not sin. How could he sin? The breaking of the Law from God to Moses is sin. The breaking of tradition, given by men, is not the breaking of the Law.
Does this make sense?
Yes, it all helps... And I believe that the total evidence strongly outweighs Matt 23:2-3...
But Matt 23:2-3 seems to be very explicit. Without the whole evidence of context AS context, it can be taken very wrongly.