"Karl Radl" of Semitic Controversies begins with an inaccurate paraphrase and draws further false conclusions from it before listening to the opposition. The text says not "Jesus" but "Yeshu", not "your punishment" but "the punishment", not "to be in boiling excrement" but just "boiling excrement", such that the summary "Jesus has been punished by God for his ‘offences’ by being boiled in excrement in Gehenna" is fully misrepresentative in the first place.

The respondent, David Lange, correctly cites Rabbi Gil Student who affirms and represents an opinion within traditional Judaism where this is not Jesus Christ. (Lange incorrectly says Jesus Christ isn't in the Talmud at all, and believes in yet another Yeshu in between Yeshu the Student and Jesus Christ: "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. While Yeshu may be the proto-Jesus some scholars point to as inspiring the early Christians, he is definitely not the man who was crucified in Jerusalem in the year 33 CE." I don't have evidence such a person existed, I think the respondent is doing further cobbling of Yeshu the Student (2nd century BC) with Jesus Christ, which further proves the fact that people use the word "Yeshu" for several different centuries indiscriminately. But that's unimportant.) The respondent concludes by correctly noting "some Rabbis who argue that ‘Jesus’ of Gittin 57a is the same Jesus". Therefore he rightly says the passage is ambiguous.

"Karl" begins by believing the passage speaks of "Yeshua" when it doesn't but speaks of "Yeshu"; basic text fail. The fact that Schafer believes this Yeshu does mean Jesus Christ doesn't undercut the fact that it's ambiguous and that others with equal authority, like Gil Student, believe it doesn't. The "villains" concept doesn't mean that "Yeshu" must be Christ alone, it would only refer to whatever amalgamated "Yeshu" was in the mind of the joke's author and audience, and even assuming they had all accurate information it would still be interpreted as a reference to all three or more people named Yeshu, not as a particular one of them because no one of them is uniquely singled out as a greater villain. The fact that Balaam might mean Jesus Christ in other ambiguous passages is a bit of a failure to even read the text, because in this text the author clearly wants to distinguish Titus from Balaam from Yeshu (even though each name can refer to multiple enemies; mental note, maybe we should hold that all three are ambiguous). "Karl" concludes circularly, "The rabbinical context (and a common sense) clearly suggests that Jesus (i.e., Yeshua) is the one meant", except none of this has been proven.

Schafer is quoted well (I'll requote that separately) but his point is lost on "Karl". (1) Schafer alludes to the fact that some texts don't even say Yeshu but "sinner of Israel" instead ("Yeshu" is probably the original). (2) He also concludes that the intent of the Tosefta commentary is that Yeshu's punishment is believed to be only for one year, similarly to what I concluded in my initial article.

The joke was likely composed in the 2nd century, when reference to Onkelos (and memory of the third Yeshu, Yeshu ben Pappos) would've been fresh, and orally transmitted with loss of the author's name until compiled in the formal Talmud. This provenance does not give special attention to Jesus Christ among other Talmudic memories.

It's great to find that Israel Jacob Yuval, 2008, Two Nations in Your Womb, p. 132, finds a 1096 Mainz Jew ("Karl" uses lowercase) saying, "And you shall be condemned to hell together with your god and in boiling faeces." Offhand this could indicate an idea that (1) Jesus is a god and (2) Jesus is condemned to hell in boiling feces, though it doesn't require that even if Jesus is the referent. However, it need not reference Gittin 57a directly because the general punishment could be taken to the punishment of idolators stated elsewhere and that whatever is the god intended (e.g. a crucifix or icon) it too would be condemned. Therefore, though Yuval might make that conclusion, it is not clear that this is the belief intended in Mainz, and it's certainly not shown that this is a tenet to be believed or an unambiguous conclusion (as opposed to a permitted opinion among many).

Conclusion: When he says, "Yes, the claim that in Folios 56b and 57a of Tractate Gittin the Babylonian Talmud states that Jesus is ‘boiling in excrement’ is an accurate interpretation of the passage and the traditional/current jewish understanding of it", more accurately this is one permitted interpretation of an ambiguous passage on which Judaism has no formal traditional judgment. We could judge Judaism for not making a judgment on this ambiguity after all this time, but there are more important things for Judaism to judge formally IMHO.