Would you agree the Bible in Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek is nothing to a person without understanding of those languages or translation by people who have (orally) transmitted the meaning of those languages?

I answered that video in place and you're quoting my quote of the transcript. (1) It's not a rabbi, it's a rando Orthodox who is open to the Messianic view, which is a positive encounter and should be upheld as such. This is exactly the type of supportive conversation Christians should have with the Orthodox. (2) The "Oral Torah" is not the Talmud because the Talmud is written; it's the living spirit behind written judgments. Stephen believed in it and called it the "living oracles". (3) For a few teachers, Messianics are 100% rejected, but most recognize Messianics must be dealt with more diplomatically; for instance the Israeli Supreme Court recognizes that Messianics have Jewish right of return if they have Rabbinical parents or grandparents. (4) You're getting added to the misquote pile, there's only one Talmudic passage about Yeshu and hell. There's only one clearly about Jesus of Nazareth and it's pretty historical, stating that he was executed as an inciter, that Ulla believed he deserved it, but that the majority ruling was that in any case his rights were upheld. The other dozen passages warn against two other men named Yeshu, or against a "Yeshu" character generically, and give mixed views about the nascent Messianic Jews. There are plenty of passages about idolatry and polytheism, but whether these apply to Christians is always left ambiguous.

It is their holy book, just not their holiest book. For a significant segment it may be the most consulted book, which is a travesty. I remember the Messianic Jew who was so proud of Judaism and his receipt of a big black Scripture for his bar mitzvah. He never looked at it until an adulthood crisis where he wanted the very words of God and then he regarded that the rabbis had lied to him, what he received was only a Siddur (almost entirely human liturgy)! When he looked elsewhere for God he found Jesus. The system does tend to cause people to forget that its foundation and constitution is the Torah (much as Americans forget their Constitution).

Now I could uncharitably adopt your view that all Jews believe hateful things about Jesus, based only on this and other circumstantial evidence. I find it unhelpful to, because I wouldn't judge any person based on circumstantial evidence without hearing him. I can judge demographic likelihood that a particular Jew is against Jesus, but if I hope to see them accept Jesus it's more helpful to that end for me to accept their testimony in their own words and not prejudge it. When you and others draw sweeping inferences from the texts, it shuts down this kind of evangelism by declining to hear what they actually say. To prejudge that a particular non-Christian is unopen to the truth is to say in advance they cannot be reached by God's power and light. Crossing over to the other discussion, God's light is capable of reflecting in any human soul and so I don't close that option out without firm objective reasons.