אֲזַל אַסְּקֵיהּ בִּנְגִידָא לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן חֲשִׁיב בְּהָהוּא עָלְמָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַהוּ לְאִדַּבּוֹקֵי בְּהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹבָתָם דְּרוֹשׁ, רָעָתָם לֹא תִּדְרוֹשׁ, כׇּל הַנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן כְּאִילּוּ נוֹגֵעַ בְּבָבַת עֵינוֹ.

Onkelos then went and raised Jesus the Nazarene from the grave through necromancy. Onkelos said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Jesus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them in this world? Jesus said to him: Their welfare you shall seek, their misfortune you shall not seek, for anyone who touches them is regarded as if he were touching the apple of his eye (see Zechariah 2:12).

-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 57a:3

Gittin 56 speaks of Jerusalem’s fall (70CE), Titus who enters the Holy of Holies, blasphemes God, and commits indecent acts there. The discussion continues with the theme that arrogant world powers fall under divine retribution; God brings judgment on the enemies of Israel.

In Gittin 56b, the Gemara changes the discourse by relating an account of one “Onkelos bar Kalunikus, the son of Titus’ sister”. This is a reference to the nephew of Roman Emperor Titus (Although, according to Midrash Tanchuma, he was a nephew of Roman Emperor Hadrian). According to the account, he was interested in converting to Judaism, but had not done so yet. In Jewish History, he does become a convert, and is credited with writing an Aramaic translation to the Torah (Targum Onkelos). He was a Roman national who lived cerca 35–120 CE.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּינֵיהּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּמַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּצוֹאָה רוֹתַחַת. דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל הַמַּלְעִיג עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים נִידּוֹן בְּצוֹאָה רוֹתַחַת. תָּא חֲזִי מָה בֵּין פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִנְבִיאֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages. The Gemara comments: Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the nations of the world. As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm, whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their well-being.

-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 57a:4

No, the Talmud is not endorsing necromancy. The general focus of the account in the Gemara is the warning and instruction from the souls of wicked/enemies of Israel to Onkelos. Onkelos is seeking their input. According to the text, he did not convert yet. He was still a Roman national steeped in pagan customs and traditions, and likely did not yet receive the Torah prohibition of necromancy (Deu. 18:11)

One major point to consider. If Onkelos raised this Yeshu, it cannot be the Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef of Netzaret. The timeline is off. Messiah/Rabbi Yeshua died, arose from the dead and ascended to the Heavenly realms before even the birth of Onkelos who was born cerca 35CE.

Aggadah is Jewish lore, stories, and homilies in the Talmud/Midrash that use narrative and allegory, not just law (Halakha), to teach profound ethical, spiritual, and theological lessons. Often Aggadot explain scripture through imaginative tales, parables, and symbolic figures to connect with readers or listeners to convey profound insights about God, humanity, and the world. It is usually not meant to be taken hyper-literally. And of course, context is key. 

Gittin 56b–57a is part of a long Aggadic discourse about the destruction of Jerusalem (meanwhile utilizing historical details). Its primary purpose is moral–theological instruction, not a historical record.

This is an ethical/theological lesson. It addresses the internal conflicts that compounded the spiritual and moral decay leading to the ultimate destruction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem. It raises the issue of profaned sanctity. The account relates of individuals who may use Torah knowledge, intellect, or charisma against holiness. These things the enemies of Israel did (Titus, Bilam, and Yeshu), but were punished for that. These are used as examples as a warning regarding charismatic false leaders who mislead many, but in the end are Judged. Gittin 56b–57a teaches that when Torah is divorced from humility, compassion, and reverence for Heaven, even brilliance becomes ruin—and destruction follows from within before it comes from without.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּינֵיהּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּמַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּצוֹאָה רוֹתַחַת. דְּאָמַר מָר: כׇּל הַמַּלְעִיג עַל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים

Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Jesus himself, in the next world? Jesus said to him: He is punished with boiling excrement. As the Master said: Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement. And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages.

-Talmud Bavli, Gittin 57a:4

The idea of “mocking the words of the sages” is to not specifically to make fun of or laugh at what the sages said, but to disregard their words (judgments, enactments), rebel and cause others to do likewise. The sages of blessed memory were the Shoftim/Judges of old. It was this authority that G-d established in (Exodus 18:13-27, Numbers 11:16-17, and Deuteronomy 16:18). Chazal, i.e. the Sages, are to teach Israel G-d’s Torah, and the words of the sages are considered to be like words of refined intellect.

Excrement (צואה) is the antithesis of refined intellect — it is what remains after the body extracts all that is usable and noble from food; thus it symbolizes the lowest level, utterly devoid of spiritual refinement. Therefore, someone who rejects the Torah’s wisdom receives a punishment that is symbolically the opposite — boiling excrement — because it represents a spiritual realm disconnected from the sanctified life of Torah.

Chidushei Agadot states this regarding the concept of disgrace:

“And since he disgraces the words of the Sages, he is sentenced to disgrace in excrement. And it appears that this is the explanation of that which is written, “much study”: That [Kohelet] already stated about the words of the Sages (in the same verse), “be careful [of] making many books, etc.” – that is that they should make a fence to the Torah with their books. [Hence] whoever mocks them about doing this a great deal to erect fences will be sentenced to “weariness of the flesh.” And this is simple to understand.”

-Chidushei Agadot on Gittin 57a:4

This defined location is quoted in the Zohar;

There is a place in Gehinom – and levels therein – that are called Tzoah Rotachat. and therein is the filth of souls that are sullied from all filth of this world and (the soul itself) get(s) cleansed and are brought up (but) this filth remains over there. and these evil levels that are called Tzoah Rotachat are in authority of this (leftover) filth. and the fire of gehinnom rules on this filth that is left over, and there are liable individuals that sully themselves with sins on a constant basis and do not undertake to cleanse themselves of them (those sins), and they decease without repentance. and (while alive) they sinned and caused others to sin and they were of a stubborn nature all the while (they were) alive and did not submit before their master in this world. These are judged over there in this filth and in this Tzoah Rotachat that never gets released..on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov the fire remains but they are not judged (but, on the other hand) are not released

— Zohar vol. 2 p. 150b

The Yeshu in Gittin was said to mock the words of the sages. This is a different Jesus, not R. Yeshua of Natzeret. Yeshua did not mock the words of the sages. In Matthew 23, we find his words to his talmidim astounding:

 הַסּוֹפְרִים וְהַפְּרוּשִׁים יֹשְׁבִים עַל־כִּסֵּא משֶׁה׃ לָכֵן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְרוּ לָכֶם שִׁמְרוּ וַעֲשׂוֹּ

“The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it.

-Matthew 23:2-3

Although Yeshua did have halachic disagreements and rebuttals to some of the P’rushim, he did not reject their authority. He upheld their halachic authority. If he rejected the authority of the P’rushim and the Torah Teachers, he would have been in violation of Biblical commands mentioned earlier. Others may suggest that there are other passages in the New Testament that contradicts this. This is, however, nuanced, and goes beyond the scope of this article. It will be covered in another article. Suffice it to say, this Yeshu who rejected and mocked the words of the sages was punished.

“It is well known that when R. Yehiel of Paris was confronted in 1240 with the argument that the Talmud should be banned partly because of blasphemies against Jesus, he maintained that the Jesus of the Talmud and the Jesus of the Christians are two different people.…Whatever one thinks of the sincerity of the multiple Jesus theory, R. Yehiel found a way to neutralize some dangerous rabbinic statements, and yet the essential Ashkenazic evaluation of Jesus remains even in the text of this disputation.…In the fourteenth century, Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas made much stronger use of the theory of two Jesuses in defending Judaism and the Talmud against renewed attack.”

– Berger, David, 1998, “On the Uses of History in Medieval Jewish Polemic against Christianity: The Quest for the Historical Jesus”

“As we have explained elsewhere, Yeshu is not Jesus of the New Testament.  He is most likely a prominent sectarian of the early first century BCE who deviated from rabbinic tradition and created his own religion combining Hellenistic paganism with Judaism.”¹