By Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz

Then Avraham took his son Yishmael, and all his homeborn slaves and all those he had bought, every male in Avraham’s household, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins on that very day, as G-d had spoken to him. And Avraham was ninety-nine years old when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin. ~ Bereishis 17:23-24 The Source

The concept of a sandek, the honor to hold the baby during a bris, goes back to Chazal and the Torah itself. According to the midrash (Tehillim 35), when Avraham Avinu attempted to give himself a bris, he was trembling to the extent that Hashem had to hold him down and assist him. In doing so, Hashem actually became the very first sandek in history. Similarly, Targum Yonasan (Bereishis 50:23) explains that when the Torah describes that the children of Ephraim and Menashe were born on the lap of Yosef, the intention is that they rested on his lap shortly after they were born, as he served as their sandek. Midrash Tehillim (35) lists the various mitzvos that Dovid HaMelech did with the different parts of his body and states that he used his knees to serve as a sandek.

Bereishis Rabbah (47:7) recounts that when Avraham circumcised all the males in his household and left the foreskins exposed to the sun, the resulting aroma was so pleasing to Hashem that it was likened to the fragrance of the ketores and a korban olah, both of which are entirely consumed by fire when offered. This comparison between the act of facilitating a bris milah and the offering of ketores forms the basis for several minhagim associated with sandeka’us. One such custom, cited by the Rema (265:11) from the Maharil, dictates that an individual should not serve as a sandek more than once. This practice mirrors the ruling in the Gemara (Yoma 26a), which states that a kohen was not allowed to offer the ketores more than once because it is a segulah for wealth, and the opportunity was spread among as many kohanim as possible.

Similarly, serving as a sandek is also considered a segulah for wealth, so the honor is traditionally given to different individuals to distribute this blessing widely.

A Practical Objection and Other Possible Sources

The Vilna Gaon (Bei’ur HaGra 265:46) rejects the explanation that we limit a person from being a sandek more than once because it has the power to bestow wealth and we want to spread that blessing. Indeed, the Vilna Gaon writes that we do not observe that those who serve as sandek subsequently accumulate more wealth. Rather, he posits that the reason for this practice is based on the tzva’ah of Rav Yehuda HaChasid (35), and is mystical in origin. The Aruch HaShulchan (265:34) also cites the tzava’ah of Rav Yehuda HaChasid, but adds that the original source of this minhag is Rabbeinu Peretz, who was also known to be an expert in the hidden areas of Torah. Thus, the Aruch HaShulchan similarly assumes that the true reasons for this minhag are kabbalistic in nature, and not based on a comparison to the ketores. He suggests that the Rema also knew the kabbalistic reason but cited the comparison to ketores because he didn’t want to explicitly make a halachic ruling based on mystical sources.

The Noda B’Yehuda (1:86) offers a different perspective on the practice in response to a question regarding whether it is permissible to have the same person serve as sandek for a second son if no one else is deemed worthy of the honor. He explains, based on the Gemara, that the offering of the ketores was a segulah for wealth because it was an exceedingly rare honor, performed only twice a day for the entire Jewish people. In contrast, serving as a sandek is a common occurrence, happening thousands of times daily, and therefore does not carry the same potential to bestow wealth. As such, the custom of not serving as a sandek more than once cannot be rooted in financial considerations.

Instead, the Noda B’Yehuda suggests that this practice is analogous to the halacha that one should not give all his terumah to a single kohen but rather distribute it among many kohanim. The Gemara (Eruvin 63) states that giving all of one’s terumah to the same kohen brings aniyus (poverty) into the world, as it leaves other kohanim without any support. Similarly, the honor and zechus of being a sandek should be shared among as many people as possible, rather than repeatedly bestowing it upon the same individual.

Practical Differences Between the Reasons

The Beis Hillel (commentary on Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 265:3) writes that the entire custom is only that one family should not honor the same person with being sandek more than once among their children. However, if someone served as sandek for a child from one family, he is not restricted from serving as sandek again for a child from another family. This position would seem to make more sense according to the Noda B’Yehuda’s reasoning that one should not give all his matnos kehuna to one kohen. There is certainly no objection to multiple families giving some of their matanos to the same kohen, and similarly multiple families may honor the same person with being sandek. However, if the comparison to the ketores is the source of the custom, once a person has served as a sandek, he should never do so again even for a different family. Nevertheless, the Beis Hillel writes that even according to the Rema, different families may ask the same person to be sandek.

The Chasam Sofer (O.C. 158) strongly supports the Rema’s reasoning and disagrees with the Noda B’Yehuda and the Aruch HaShulchan (ibid.). This is based on the prevailing practice in some communities where the city’s rav serves as the sandek at every bris. This practice can be explained based on the Rema’s perspective, which equates being a sandek with offering the ketores. While a regular kohen could not offer the ketores more than once, the kohen gadol had the privilege of offering the ketores whenever he wished. Similarly, the rav of the town holds a position similar to that of the kohen gadol, allowing him to serve as a sandek without limitations. According to the Noda B’Yehuda, however, the prohibition of giving all of one’s matanos to a single kohen applies to the kohen gadol as well. Therefore, there would be no basis to make an exception for a rav.

The Chacham Tzvi (74) writes that although in general a person may not give all his matanos to one kohen, an individual is permitted to give everything to a kohen who is a relative or very close friend. Based on this, the Yad Shaul rules that one can honor a family member to be sandek more than once. This logic assumes the understanding of the Noda B’Yehuda, but would not follow from the explanation of the Rema, since there are no family dispensations for ketores. The Teshuvos Beis Dovid (122) records a practice that some communities restrict people from serving as a sandek more than once a year, but if a year has passed, they may again serve as sandek. The passage of a year would not make any difference according to the Rema, as a kohen could not offer the ketores again even after a year. However, according to the Noda B’Yehuda’s reasoning it does make sense to allow someone to be sandek again after a year, just as someone could give his matanos to a kohen one year and then do so again the next year.

Although the common practice is to follow the Rema and limit people from serving as sandek more than once, the Noda B’Yehuda notes that this is not the strongest or most important minhag, and one may be lenient if the situation should arise or if a particular place has not established the practice.