Last week, the Indianapolis Colts signed a rookie player whose name, Adonai Mitchell, testifies to the strong Hebraic strains in American culture. It also poses a problem for devout Jewish football fans, as Louis Keene explains:

Adonai is a Hebrew name for God that Jews use during worship; halakhah, or Jewish law, forbids its use outside of ritual contexts. (Hashem, which means “the name,” is generally substituted.) So what do you say when Adonai catches a pass—or drops one?

I reached out to Rabbi Avi Schwartz, an NFL fan who works at Rutgers University Hillel, to get some guidance. It turned out Schwartz had already consulted his own rabbi, Aryeh Lebowitz, a leader at Yeshiva University’s seminary—who in turn asked his rabbi, YU’s Rabbi Hershel Schachter.

Schachter, who is perhaps the leading posek, or halakhic [authority], for Orthodox Jews in the United States, had an answer ready because the question had previously been posed by someone who worked with a doctor whose name sounded like the Hebrew word for God.

“He thought that it’s fine,” Lebowitz said in a voice note Schwartz forwarded. The rationale, Schwartz said, was that “it’s obvious that you’re not calling” a wide receiver . . . “your god.”

Iran recently announced its plans to install over 1,000 new advanced centrifuges at its Fordow nuclear facility. Once they are up and running, the Institute for Science and International Security assesses, Fordow will be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear bombs in a mere ten days. The U.S. has remained indifferent. Jacob Nagel writes:

For more than two decades, Iran has continued its efforts to enhance its nuclear-weapons capability—mainly by enriching uranium—causing Israel and the world to concentrate on the fissile material. The International Atomic Energy Agency recently confirmed that Iran has a huge stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent, as well as more enriched to 20 percent, and the IAEA board of governors adopted the E3 (France, Germany, UK) proposed resolution to censure Iran for the violations and lack of cooperation with the agency. The Biden administration tried to block it, but joined the resolution when it understood its efforts to block it had failed.

To clarify, enrichment of uranium above 20 percent is unnecessary for most civilian purposes, and transforming 20-percent-enriched uranium to the 90-percent-enriched product necessary for producing weapons is a relatively small step. Washington’s reluctance even to express concern about this development appears to stem from an unwillingness to acknowledge the failures of President Obama’s nuclear policy. Worse, writes Nagel, it is turning a blind eye to efforts at weaponization. But Israel has no such luxury:

Israel must adopt a totally new approach, concentrating mainly on two main efforts: [halting] Iran’s weaponization actions and weakening the regime hoping it will lead to its replacement. Israel should continue the fight against Iran’s enrichment facilities (especially against the new deep underground facility being built near Natanz) and uranium stockpiles, but it should not be the only goal, and for sure not the priority.

The biggest danger threatening Israel’s existence remains the nuclear program. It would be better to confront this threat with Washington, but Israel also must be fully prepared to do it alone.