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.”

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”