>I must ask, was anything they taught us as kids true?

Thanks for the link! Of course, but I would put what you asked another way: why is there almost no distinction between facts and legends? Although you can find halachic discussions about whether or not it is permitted to teach false stories in order to impart yiras shamayim, and you can find opinions both pro and con, in most cases no one realizes that they are saying anything which isn't true. I think the point is that we (or those who taught us) have an awful lot of confidence in the concept of mesorah, and also aren't equipped with either the secular knowledge to begin to know how to question something concerning Napoleon, for example, or the skepticism necessary to question pretty much anything that great people and their students tell them. It so happens that if you research the sources for many things you may find that there is flimsy or no basis for them, or that there is another side to the story. On the other hand, many many things are absolutely true too.

The common denominator is that whatever we were taught as kids, or what our kids are taught, is self-serving. To a degree this is understandable, because we are trying to impart a definite point of view.

I should also point out that I did *not* really debunk the Napoleon story. I suspect that it didn't happen, and therefore there will never be any way to confirm it, but I wouldn't be surprised if something turns up earlier (in print) than 1891. It's also important to take note that in the mention I found, the author sees the story as so well known that he doesn't feel it necessary at all to say what Napoleon said, only that "we remember what he said." This is a pretty sure indication that the story must be years, if not decades older, although as I said there are really two versions, so we can't even say that the 'frum' version is the original. But even if we can confidently say that the story has to be 25 years older, to use an arbitrary number, of course Napoleon's campaign in Russia happened almot 80 years earlier, and what would we say about the authenticity of a Chafetz Chaim story if we could date it not to 1931 but to 1986?

We should also remember that many things happen without making it into print. Orality is not a sure sign of falsehood. It is just frustrating because often we can't tell how old an oral tradition is, or even if it is an oral tradition. It would make it easier if someone writing in 1850 had said straight out that when he was a teenager in 1812 this is what everyone was gossiping about during Sukkos of that year, but of course there is no such thing.

I would say the reason why they dont distinguish between fact and fiction is because if your teacher or rebbe told you a story and told you it wasnt true and is just a story, it would lose its effectiveness. you wouldnt learn any lesson fro it, because it was made up anyway, and you would just listen to it as a nice story but nothing of any importance.

Sure, but in the discussions about telling something false no one is talking about disclosing the falseness to the kids.

And even though such theoretical discussion assume that the rebbe knows the thing is false, I bet that in reality no one really tells over things they personally believe are false. For example, although I can believe there are people who tell over Maharal Golem stuff who are aware that it is considered to be made up, I bet no one who says it over with this awareness is personally convinced that this it is not true. For them something like legends about the Lubavitcher Rebbe ascending the attic of the Altneu Schul cancel out the impious killjoy researches of historians.

I only recently became aware that the Golem was not historical fact

Well, your first hint should have been that you can't actually animate a dirt man into life. ;-)

Putting that sort of thing aside, assuming you mean the question of is there even an authentic legend about the Maharal, dating to the period of the Maharal's life, nu I once had a rebbe who certainly was not skeptical about the possibility of really creating a golem, but he told us that believing the Maharal made one is not one of the yud gimmel ikkarim. I don't think he was aware of the academic discussions about the nature of the evidence or the age of this legend. He just has some sechel hayashar and was willing to openly tell talmidim something which some of them needed to hear.

I dnot think people believe stories like the golem 9for example) as fact because they consider it to be one of the tenets of our faith that it must of happened.
I certainly didnt.
I didnt think about it at all. it was just a fact. We grew up with the stories as if it was true. it wasnt even a question.
Make sense? now that I think about it, sure it doesnt make sense. but it was sold as somethign extraordinary, done via kabbala and the secrets of the universe and the torah (which can sell anything).

It just was. It was not even a question to think about.

The really interesting thing is that the origin of the propagation of the golem story is secular German novels from the 1830s incorporating Jewish legends because they made good stories. Not exactly a holy source.

you mean the source wasnt the Jewish press? :-)

LOL That was my source, for the most part.