Where the Argument Collapses
Matthew records the same conversation Mark records, and Matthew ends it with a sentence Mark does not have.
To eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. That is verse 20. It is the closing line of the discourse, and it names the subject.
The Claim
Yahushua says it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man. Matthew has no disputed clause and no translation problem. The statement stands on its own, and it ends the food laws.
The Verse
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
— Matthew 15:11
He Explains It Himself
The disciples do not understand it. They ask, and He answers.
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
— Matthew 15:17–18
He names the two destinations. What enters goes to the belly. What comes out comes from the heart.
The whole saying is about which of the two reaches a man. Nothing in it defines what may be eaten.
Then He Names the Subject
Matthew closes the discourse with a sentence that leaves no room for guessing.
These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
— Matthew 15:20
Unwashen hands. He says it Himself, at the end, in plain words.
The last line of a teaching is where a speaker says what he meant. This one names hands.
What the Argument Was
Matthew states the charge at the top of the chapter, before any of this.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
— Matthew 15:2
Tradition of the elders. Not the commandment. The Pharisees say it themselves.
Bread is the only food named in the chapter, and it was lawful bread. Nobody disputed it. No unclean creature is named anywhere in the passage.
His Charge Back at Them
Before answering about hands, He brings a charge of His own, and it decides how the chapter should be read.
Why do ye also transgress the commandment of Yahuah by your tradition?
— Matthew 15:3
He then gives the example. They had built a rule called Corban that let a man withhold support from his parents by declaring the money a gift. That rule cancelled the fifth commandment.
Thus have ye made the commandment of Yahuah of none effect by your tradition.
— Matthew 15:6
This is the frame of the whole chapter. He is defending a commandment against a man-made rule that had displaced it.
A teacher who opens by charging men with voiding a commandment does not close by voiding one Himself.
The List He Gave
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
— Matthew 15:19
Murder. Adultery. Theft. False witness. Blasphemy.
That is not a general list of bad behaviour. Those are commandments, named in order.
He answers a charge about washing by naming the Law, and He calls breaking the Law the thing that actually defiles a man.
Why This One Matters
Matthew is often held up as the cleaner witness, because Mark carries a translated clause that has to be argued about.
But Matthew gives less to the modern reading, not more. Matthew has no clause at all, and Matthew is the one who ends the discourse by naming hands.
The version without the disputed words is the version that states the subject outright.
The Verdict
Matthew 15 is a dispute over a hand-washing rule that men had added to the written word.
Yahushua answers it by saying what enters a man goes to the belly, and what defiles him comes out of his heart.
Then He says which question He was answering. To eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Foundations Cited
F-09 Commandments of Yahuah, Traditions of Men · F-10 Common Is Not Unclean