You are interested in the Talmudic perspective on non-Jews and on the Christian Messiah. Let's have a look at each of them.

(a) Regarding non-Jews, the Talmud by no means speaks badly about them. To the contrary, we find in Pirkei Avos (3:14) "Precious is mankind, since man was created in the "form" of G-d" - referring to Jews and non-Jews alike, as most commentaries there point out.

Of course, there were good non-Jews and bad ones, as in any society. But the Gemara talks very favorably about the former. Some of them subsequently converted to Judaism such as Queen Helena and her two sons. We are taught that "Chasidei Umos ha'Olam," righteous gentiles, have a portion in the World to Come (see Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 3:5 - the qualification for this title is set out in Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 8:11).

Otherwise, the Jewish nation is attributed unique status because of their commitment to fulfill the Word of G-d and thereby bring about the completion of His master-plan for the world - uniting the entire world in His service. Hash-m has in fact equipped us for this mission in numerous ways - some of which are obvious to any student of history, and some of which are less obvious. In this sense, various Talmudic statements may refer to the general lack of commitment of non-Jews or to their lacking the unique holy qualities referred to above. However, the Talmud will never denigrate non-Jews for being born non-Jewish, any more than it would denigrate one who is lame from birth for his physical defect.

(b) Regarding the Christian Messiah (who was certainly not a non-Jew), it should come as no surprise that just as Christians consider religious Jews to be infidels for not accepting their Messiah, the Sages considered Yeshu to be an apostate, who misled countless Jews, preaching to them to forsake the Mitzvos of their fathers. True to this perspective, there are numerous places (nearly always censored out of the common edition) - including the one in Gitin that you cite - which refer to him as a sinner of the first degree.

As to the particular piece in Gitin, it is a typical Agadic hyperbole in similar style to the one mentioned in the same Gemara in relation to Bilam; only if taken out of context could it be considered in any way offensive. (See also Maharsha, Chidushei Agados, who explains the biblical derivation of the statement there.)

It is interesting to note that despite this, the Talmud places the blame for Yeshu's leaving the fold squarely at the feet of one of its greatest sages.

An episode related about Rebbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (Chesronos ha'Shas Sanhedrin 107b and Sotah 47a) actually criticizes the great Torah scholar for being overly harsh with his pupil and not following the dictum of "Semol Dochah v'Yemin Mekareves" (push away with the left hand and bring close with the right hand), a practice which might have saved his pupil from going astray.

(c) By the way, it is fairly clear from Talmudic literature that there was more than one person called by the name Yeshu. This confusion has been severely exacerbated by very severe censorship of any Talmudic passage referring in any way to the Christian Messiah. Examples of such passages can be found in Sanhedrin, Sotah, and Shabbos. This is clearly reflected in a dispute between Rabeinu Tam in Shabbos 104b and Tosfos in Chagigah 4b DH Hava regarding when Yeshu lived.

The consensus is that Yeshu is the one rejected by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah who had to flee to Alexandria to escape the wrath of King Yanai. This would date him well before the Christian version, since we know that Hillel took office 100 years prior to the destruction of the Temple (Shabbos 15a) and he was the last of the "Zugos". We know from the beginning of Pirkei Avos that there were five pairs of Zugos and that Yehoshua ben Perachyah was part of the second pair. Since the destruction of the Temple was not later than 70 CE this dates him in the second century BCE.

This supports the well established historical fact that the BCE/CE system does not relate to the birth of the Christian Messiah but rather to the death of Herod, which was many years later. See my book "Pearls of Light" vol. 2 p. 273 regarding the dating of English correspondence. An objective assessment of the whole issue is contained in a book called "Revolution in Judaea" by my late uncle, Hyam Maccoby. He was a historical scholar and sets out his conclusions objectively. He shows clearly the distortion perpetrated by pro-Roman and viciously anti-Jewish Hellenistic writers.

(d) Thus, in summation, the Gemara objectively gives credit where it is due and opprobrium to those who deserve it. Agadic material has slightly different criteria and must be handled with care and only in context. It cannot be taken literally in most instances as it contains a deeper coding and message and is not meant for the uninitiated. However, unlike most historical works, there is nothing in the whole of the Talmud written in anger or with venom or in a biased manner against anyone who does not deserve it.

Kol Tuv,

Joseph Pearlman