Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the famous principle that one who brings the incense receives a special benefit of becoming wealthy via supernatural means.

Because it was associated with the benefit of wealth, the custom was to allow each cohen to perform this service only once in a lifetime (Yoma 26a).

There is a tradition that serving as a sandek (the one who holds the baby) during the Bris is considered as if he is offering the incense. Based on this, Rama (YD 265:11) quotes poskim who hold that one should not give the honor of sandek twice within the same family, meaning that one should not serve as sandek for two siblings. This ruling is hotly debated (commentaries ibid), as it is not mentioned in the Gemara, and there is also a logical difficulty: if we take the comparison fully seriously, then not only should one not serve as a sandek twice for one family, but perhaps not even twice in a lifetime. In the end, it appears to be a mystically derived concern with only oblique references and supports. I will not enter into the full debate, except to focus on a particular comment that the Gra (ibid) made in his dissenting opinion: “We have never seen a sandek become wealthy,” meaning that if it is being thoroughly compared to the incense, then the exact same benefit should follow, especially since that was the purported reason it was not repeated.

There are many, many segulos in our tradition that promise wealth, obviously some with a higher degree of provenance than others. First, we have cases where Scripture itself promises long life, such as honoring one’s parents and fulfilling the requirement of sending away the mother bird (Devarim 5:16 and 22:6–7). Tehilim (34:13–15) famously promises long life to one who guards his tongue. The Gemara (Megilla 27b) discusses many segulos for longevity, ranging from toileting and hygiene practices to refraining from assigning a derogatory nickname to a friend. Regardless, I think most of us would say that we do not necessarily expect segulos to come true in a literal or guaranteed fashion. We tend to view them more like vitamins—that is, they can certainly be helpful, but they are no guarantee. If so, how do we understand the Gra’s objection? This is not someone who would use his words lightly, especially when making an assertion that, in a certain sense, casts doubt on the validity of such promises.

I believe there is a simple answer, rooted in his exact wording. He did not say, “We do not often see a sandek becoming wealthy.” Rather, the Gra’s precise statement was: “We have never seen a sandek become wealthy.” This supports our position. We do not expect segulos to work consistently. The Gra’s objection was that he had never observed, to a meaningful degree, any wealth benefit resulting from serving as a sandek. Seeing that it never—or virtually never—produced such an outcome was his reason to question the attribution of supernatural qualities in this case.