Ultimate Horcrux

[Judy]

Hello, all.  For months, I was too busy to post here, and then felt 
like I'd never have time to read all the new posts.  So, I've decided 
to just jump in and and start replying to recent posts.

I've missed you guys!!!

Snow said:
> Not much time (since Dad has been on the verge of "the next great 
> adventure") to ponder my most recent thought provoking recovery re-
> reading old posts ....
> Dumbledore is also aware of Horcruxes, did he use the death of 
> Grindlewald to make a Horcrux by way of a Phoenix?....

Snow, I am very sorry to hear about your father. It was very tough 
when I lost my mother, but I have hope that there is an afterlife and 
that I will see her again someday. 

As for Dumbledore creating a Horcrux, I think that is totally out of 
character for him.  Dumbledore felt that Horcruxes are so evil that 
students should not be told about them. (Harry is a special case, 
obviously, since he has no choice but to confront Horcruxes, and has 
destroyed one already.)  In the Pensieve, we see Slughorn telling Tom 
Riddle, "People wouldn't like to think that we've been chatting about 
Horcruxes.  It's a banned subject at Hogwarts, you know.... 
Dumbledore's particularly fierce about it...."

Slughorn also says that "Death would be preferable" to the limited 
existence provided by a Horcrux; "very few" would want to exist in 
that form.  Only someone with Voldemort's intense fear of death would 
want to make a Horcrux, I think. We know that Dumbledore had no fear 
of death, "the next great adventure."  I can't believe that 
Dumbledore would make a Horcrux. Also, I think Fawkes' mourning 
at Dumbledore's death is sincere; Fawkes is presented as pure, even 
holy, and so dishonesty is out of character for him. 

My belief is that Dumbledore really did die, and he did so willingly. 
JKR is very big on the idea of a willing sacrifice.

As for whether Dumbledore *could* have made a Horcrux after killing 
Grindewald, I'm with Caius here.  I think only a clearly immoral 
killing splits the soul, and I suspect that the death of Grindewald 
was not at all in that category.  

OK, the rest of this is rather off-topic:

Caius Marcius said:
> The Hebrew commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is improperly 
> translated - it should read "Thou shalt not murder" - or more 
> idiomatically, "Don't murder!"  Hebrew scripture distinguishes 
> murder, which is unacceptable, from killing, which is the 
> acceptable taking of a life under certain sanctioned conditions...

The Hebrew commandment here reads (after vowels are added), "lo 
tirtzach."  "Lo" is easy to translate -- it means "no" 
or "don't." "Tirtzach" is more difficult; many people translate it 
here as "murder," but in other contexts, it seems to mean "kill" or 
even "shed blood."  

In general, knowing the exact meaning of the original Hebrew 
scriptures is very difficult.  So much time has elapsed that in some 
cases, there is difficultly figuring out whether the version that has 
come down to us was the original.  An even bigger problem is that the 
original Hebrew was written without any vowels.  Semitic languages 
such as Hebrew and Arabic are based on roots of three consonants, to 
which vowels are added to produce words with different, but related, 
meanings. So, the root M-L-Ch, which shows up a lot in Hebrew 
prayers, can mean king, kingdom, majesty, has ruled, will rule, etc.  
Context must be used to infer which vowels, and therefore which 
meaning, were intended. So, it's possible that the root used in the 
commandment "lo tirtzach" actually means something different when it 
appears again in the Scriptures, even if it is spelled the same.  
Bottom line:  I don't think we can tell if "lo tirtzach" means "Don't 
Kill" or "Don't Murder."

-- Judy