This also applies to how we understand "whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments..." as it applies to the context of the law and the prophets, not a unique subset. So how we understand us not breaking circumcision or not breaking the sacrifice can be applied to the entire law rather than a segregated portion of it, which is never taught.
It seems you are either omitting, or have not read about the Prophesied Priest that was to come, who ushered in a prophesied New Priesthood Covenant for the remission of Sins. It is written that the Priesthood "works" for remission of sins under the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron", which was temporary from it's conception and included various animal sacrifices and works of that Priesthood Law for remission of sins, was to pass away "after those days", replaced by the Priesthood "works" of a New Priesthood covenant, "After the Order of Melchizedek", in which the Priest offers His Own Blood, and sacrifices His Own Self, for the remission of sins. This is a pretty important part of the Gospel of Christ, I'm not sure why you don't speak of it.
In my understanding, Jesus is this New High Priest. Therefore, if a man continues in the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Priesthood, after this Prophesied High Priest has come, would that in itself not be "Transgressing God's Laws"? After all, Moses did say:
Diet. 18:
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
As to circumcision, this world's religions are obsessed with the loose skin on a man's penis. Personally I don't think God really cared about the foreskin of the penis, as much as the fleshy heart. And HE said as much if a man is interested in His Every Word. How was a person to even know if a man was circumcised or not in the OT? Did Holy men of God walk around flashing their privates? Actually, that was forbidden by God's Law. It was always about Circumcision of the heart, as Moses teaches. And it was always considered a token between God and man.
But the "other voice" mentioned in my last reply, has used it to justify disobedience to God for centuries. I am convinced God didn't give this statute of Circumcision, so that preachers, "who profess to know God" could use it to justify the abolition of the entire Law of God.
I could be wrong, but have not Scriptures support for this popular religious philosophy of this world.
By also using "the least" reference, Christ is also levelling our qualitative judgments of law and instead he says breaking any of them is the same as breaking all of them or the same as breaking unique subset that we deem as better or arbitrarily call moral over the rest. So whatever we remove from the equation, Christ is pulling it back in saying they are all treated qualitatively the same regardless of our superficial labels we may give them (sacrafical, ceremonial, moral, etc...). He is not dividing law, he is ensuring they are viewed as a whole, rejecting any idea we may have to separate them.
But remember, Gods Himself separated the Priesthood Law according to the "Order" in which it was established. And God has always separated Sacrificial Law, for the rest of His Laws.
1 Sam. 15:
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness "is as iniquity and idolatry". Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
So I agree with you in part, that "WE" have no right or authority to Judge God's Law, one as greater than another. But "GOD" has the right to do so, and HE has, as is clearly evident in the Scripture above, and "many" more spoken by Him throughout the Bible.
The philosophy that a man can reject God's Laws, despise His Judgments, reject or pollute His Sabbaths, and then show up with the Blood of an innocent being, "as per the Law", and be justified is a falsehood. As Paul teaches, "No Flesh is justified by "works of the Law".