Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir, [and] Hushim, the sons of (f) Aher.
(f) Meaning that he was not the son of Benjamin, but of Daniel (Genesis 46:23).

Shuppim also, and Huppim, the children of Ir,.... The same with Iri, 1-Chronicles 7:7 so that these were not sons of Benjamin, as they seem to be, if they are the same with Muppim and Huppim in Genesis 46:21 but his great-grandchildren, and are the same with Shupham and Hupham, from whom families of the tribe of Benjamin sprung, Numbers 26:39 the Targum calls them the inhabitants of a city, but of what is not said, unless Geba should be meant, 1-Chronicles 8:6 and
Hushim, the sons of Aher: either the same with Aharah, the third son of Benjamin, 1-Chronicles 8:1 or Ahiram, Numbers 26:38, though some read the words, "the sons of another"; whom they suppose to be Daniel, who otherwise is omitted; and Hushim is the only son of Daniel, Genesis 46:23, where the same plural word is used as here; who, they think, is called another, by way of detestation, that tribe being guilty of gross idolatry; but he rather seems to belong to Benjamin.

Shuppim also, and Huppim--They are called Muppim and Huppim (Genesis 46:21) and Hupham and Shupham (Numbers 26:39). They were the children of Ir, or Iri (1-Chronicles 7:7).
and Hushim, the sons--"son."
of Aher--"Aher" signifies "another," and some eminent critics, taking "Aher" as a common noun, render the passage thus, "and Hushim, another son." Shuppim, Muppim, and Hushim are plural words, and therefore denote not individuals, but the heads of their respective families; and as they were not comprised in the above enumeration (1-Chronicles 7:7, 1-Chronicles 7:9) they are inserted here in the form of an appendix. Some render the passage, "Hushim, the son of another," that is, tribe or family. The name occurs among the sons of Daniel (Genesis 46:23), and it is a presumption in favor of this being the true rendering, that after having recorded the genealogy of Naphtali (1-Chronicles 7:13) the sacred historian adds, "the sons of Bilhah, the handmaid, who was the mother of Daniel and Naphtali." We naturally expect, therefore, that these two will be noticed together, but Daniel is not mentioned at all, if not in this passage.

1-Chronicles 7:12 is unintelligible to us. The first half, "And Shuppim and Huppim, sons of Ir," would seem, if we may judge from the ו cop., to enumerate some other descendants of Benjamin. And besides, (1) the names וחפּים מפּים occur in Genesis 46:21 among those of the sons of Benjamin, and in Numbers 26:39, among the families of Benjamin, one called שׁוּפמי from שׁפוּפם, and another חוּפמי from חוּפם, are introduced; we must consequently hold מפּים to be an error for שׁפם or שׁוּפם. And (2) the name עיר is most probably identical with עירי in 1-Chronicles 7:7. The peculiar forms of those names, viz., וחפּם שׁפם, seem to have arisen from an improper comparison of them with וּלשׁפּים לחפּים in 1-Chronicles 7:15, in which the fact was overlooked that the Huppim and Shuppim of 1-Chronicles 7:15 belong to the Manassites. Here, therefore, two other families descended from the Benjamite Ir or Iri would seem to be mentioned, which may easily be reconciled with the purpose (1-Chronicles 7:6) to mention none of the Benjamites but the descendants of Bela, Becher, and Jediael. The further statement, "Hushim, sons of Aher," is utterly enigmatical. The name חשׁים is found in Genesis 46:23 as that of Daniel's only son, who, however, is called in Numbers 26:42 שׁוּחם, and who founded the family of the Shuhami. But as the names חוּשׁים and חשׁים are again met with in 1-Chronicles 8:8, 1-Chronicles 8:11 among the Benjamites, there is no need to imagine any connection between our חשּׁם and that family.
The word אהר, alius, is not indeed found elsewhere as a nomen proprium, but may notwithstanding be so here; when we might, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction w, take the Hushim sons of Aher to be another Benjamite family. In that case, certainly, the tribe of Daniel would be omitted from our chapter; but we must not allow that to lead us into arbitrary hypotheses, as not only Daniel but also Zebulun is omitted.
(Note: Bertheau's judgment in the matter is different. Starting from the facts that חשׁים (Genesis 46:27) is called a son of Daniel, and that further, in the enumeration of the tribes in Genesis 46 and Numbers 26, Daniel follows after Benjamin; that in Genesis 46 Daniel stands between Benjamin and Naphtali, and that in our chapter, in 1-Chronicles 7:13, the sons of Naphtali follow immediately; and that the closing words of this verse, "sons of Bilhah," can, according to Genesis 46:25, refer only to Daniel and Naphtali, and consequently presuppose that Daniel or his descendants have been mentioned in our passage, - he thinks there can be no doubt that originally Danites were mentioned in our verse, and that חשׁם was introduced as the son of Daniel. Moreover, from the word אהר, "the other," he draws the further inference that it may have been, according to its meaning, the covert designation of a man whose proper name fear, or dislike of some sort, prevented men from using, and was probably a designation of the tribe of Daniel, which set up its own worship, and so separated itself from the congregation of Israel; cf. Judg. 17f. The name is avoided, he says, in our chapter, in 1-Chronicles 6:61 and 1-Chronicles 6:69, and is named only in 1-Chronicles 2:2 among the twelve tribes of Israel, and in 1-Chronicles 12:35. The conjecture, therefore, is forced upon us, that אהר בּן חשּׁם, "Hushim the son of the other," viz., of the other son of Bilhah, whose name he wished to pass over in silence, stands for חשּׁם דן וּבני. The name Aher, then, had so completely concealed the tribe of Daniel, that later readers did not mark the new commencement, notwithstanding the want of the conjunction, and had no scruple in adding the well-known names of the Benjamites, שׁפם and חפם, to the similarly-sounding חשׁם, though probably at first only in the margin. This hypothesis has no solid foundation. The supposed dislike to mention the name of Daniel rests upon an erroneous imagination, as is manifest from the thrice repeated mention of that name, not merely in 1-Chronicles 2:2 and 1-Chronicles 12:35, but also in 1-Chronicles 27:22. The omission of the tribe of Daniel in 1-Chronicles 6:61, 1-Chronicles 6:69, is only the result of a corruption of the text in these passages; for in 1-Chronicles 6:61 the words, "Ephraim and of the tribe of Daniel," and after 1-Chronicles 6:69 a whole verse, have been dropped out in the copying. In neither of these verses can there by any idea of omitting the name Daniel because of a dislike to mention it, for in 1-Chronicles 6:61 the name Ephraim is lacking, and in 1-Chronicles 6:69 the names of two cities are also omitted, where even Berth. cannot suppose any "dislike." When Berth. quotes Judges 18:30 in favour of his concealment hypothesis, where under the Keri מנשׁה the name משׁה is supposed to be concealed, he has forgotten that the opinion that in this passage משׁה has been altered into מנשׁה from a foolish dislike, is one of the rabbinic caprices, which we cannot attribute as a matter of course to the authors of the biblical writings. With this groundless suspicion falls of itself the attempt which he bases upon it "to solve the enigma of our verse." If the words in question do really contain a remark concerning the family of Daniel, we must suppose, with Ewald (Gesch. i. S. 242), that the text has become corrupt, several words having been dropped out. Yet the בּלהה בּני at the end of 1-Chronicles 7:13 is not sufficient to warrant such a supposition. Had the register originally contained not only the sons of Naphtali, but also the sons of Daniel, so that בלהה בני would have to be referred to both, the conj. ו could not have been omitted before נפתּלי בּני. The want of this conjunction is, however, in conformity with the whole plan of our register, in which all the tribes follow, one after the other, without a conjunction; cf. 1-Chronicles 7:6, 1-Chronicles 7:14, 1-Chronicles 7:30. ו is found only before אפרים בּני, 1-Chronicles 7:20, because Ephraim and Manasseh are closely connected, both continuing to form the one tribe of Joseph. We must accordingly hold נף בני, 1-Chronicles 7:13, without ו cop., to have been the original reading, when the conjecture that בלהה בני includes also the sons of Daniel is at once disposed of.)