1. In my reading of Mark 7 Jesus does condone the lack of handwashing. If the issue was simply having a sense of proportion-and I agree that handwashing is not the most important requirement in Judaism- there would be no need to dismiss this practice with the words "traditions of men." The point of the passage is that now "all food is clean", hardly an affirmation of rabbinic law.

2. I fully respect your sense of being not bound by organized Christianity. I am not sure how that is relevant here. Do you personally feel bound by the words of the ancient Pharisees? If you do, we have a lot to talk about.

3. Deut. 17 establishes that the Sanhedrin has the last word. You are mistaken in suggesting that one can sit in judgment on whether the Sanhedrin is following G-d's word or not. I challenge you to find one Tanach verse that says you can do that.

The Sanhedrin contradicted literal interpretion by saying "eye for an eye" means monetary compensation. Is that "against
G-d's word"? The whole point of the Oral Law is that Oral Law explains what the Written Law means. Oral sits in judgment on Written, not vice versa. To accuse the Oral Law of contradicting Scripture is to buy into the false premise that Written Law can be understood independently of Oral Law.

4. Your dichotomy between the ancient Sanhedrin and today's Rabbis overlooks the fact that the writings of the Sanhedrin explain how law is to be decided in future cases, and that no worthwhile Rabbi decides without binding himself to the words of the ancient Sanhedrin.