Genesis 48:6

Gen 48:6 And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine, [and] shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance.

Ver. 6. After the name of their brethren.] That is, of Ephraim and Manasseh; as if they were not their brethren, but their sons. Thus Jacob transfers the birthright from Reuben to Joseph. {1Ch 5:1-2}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 48:6. Thy issue after them — The Scriptures nowhere mention, nor does it appear that Joseph had any more children than these. But Jacob speaks this on supposition that he might, and in case he should have any more. Shall be thine — Shall be reputed as thy children and my grand- children, and shall not have any distinct share of my present and future inheritance, but shall have a part of their brethren’s lot in such manner and proportion as thou shalt think fit.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(6) Thy issue, which thou begettest after them.—We gather from Gen_1:23 that Joseph probably had no other sons. But if such were born to him, they were not to count as heads of tribes, but be regarded as the children of Ephraim and Manasseh, and take rank only as heads of families.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. begettest] Better, as R.V. marg., hast begotten.

they shall be called] The meaning is that any other children of Joseph, and their descendants, shall be attached to the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, and shall be called Ephraimites or Manassites.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And thy issue, which thou begettest after them, shall be thine,.... The children of Joseph, that either were, or would be begotten after Ephraim and Manasseh; though whether ever any were is not certain; and this is only mentioned by way of supposition, as Jarchi interprets it, "if thou shouldest beget", &c. these should be reckoned his own, and not as Jacob's sons, but be considered as other grandchildren of Jacob's were, and not as Ephraim and Manasseh:

and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance; they should not have distinct names, or make distinct tribes, or have a distinct inheritance; but should be called either the children of Ephraim, or the children of Manasseh, and should be reckoned as belonging either to the one tribe, or the other, and have their inheritance in them, and with them, and not separate.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Thine. They shall not claim the same prerogative: they shall live among their brethren, Ephraim and Manasses. We read not that Joseph had any other children besides these two. (Calmet) --- The double portion, or the birth-right, was thus transferred from Ruben to Joseph. (Du Hamel)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Shall be reputed as thy children, and my grandchildren, and shall not have any distinct share in my present or future inheritance, but shall have a part of their brethren’s lot, in such manner and proportion as thou shalt think fit, or as their succeeding parents or governors shall determine. But it doth not appear, nor doth Scripture any where mention, that Joseph had any other sons but these, and therefore it is probable he had no more; only Jacob speaks this upon supposition, in case he should have any other.

Shall be called after the name of their brethren; either Ephraimites or Manassites.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. Which thou begettest after them — “It is probable that Joseph had other children, and that their descendants are reckoned with those of Ephraim and Manasseh, (Num_26:23-37,) the natural being undistinguished from the adopted sons.” — Newhall.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Although the Land was divided according to the number of heads — as it is written, (Numbers 26:54) “To the more numerous thou shalt give a larger inheritance” — and each person had an equal share except those who were first-born sons (and these received a double share), yet only these of Joseph’s sons bore the name of “tribe” when it became a matter of casting lots for the partition of the land according to the number of the tribes (cf. Numbers 26:55), and of appointing princes to the various tribes and of assigning banners to each of them.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND THE CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN TO YOU AFTER THEM. “If you beget any more children, they will not be numbered among my sons, but they will rather be included among the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh. Nor shall they have a name amongst the tribes as far as inheritance in the Land of Israel is concerned.” Now even though the Land of Israel was divided according to the number of persons, as it is written, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and each person received an equal share except for the first-born, who received a double share, nevertheless only these sons were designated as “tribes.” This is the language of Rashi.Now this is not correct, for if so, then Jacob’s granting of the birthright to Joseph was just nominal, its only effect being that Joseph’s sons would be called “tribes,” whereas the verse states, in their inheritance. This indicates that the two sons of Joseph were to be given the extra right of the firstborn in the matter of inheritance. In the Gemara, the Sages have said: “I have likened Ephraim and Menasheh to Reuben and Simeon with respect to the matter of inheritance, but not with respect to other matters,” even though they did not constitute an actual majority of the entire population. In that case Ephraim and Menasheh are considered part of the tribe of Joseph. as is stated in Tractate Horayoth. Our Rabbis have mentioned in many places that Joseph was the first-born as far as inheritance was concerned, and that he received a double share in the Land, as is the rule of every first-born, but not that his being first-born consisted merely of his sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi [Rashi] would have it.From this we further learn that the Land was not divided among all the tribes of Israel according to their populations for if so, what was the significance of this primogeniture with respect to inheritance? If we would say it meant that each and every individual offspring of Joseph was given double that of each person of all other tribes, this is not mentioned at all in Scripture, and we do not find Jacob giving the birthright to Joseph except by what he said here, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me, and based upon this, Scripture states, His [Reuben’s] birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel. If so, then Ephraim and Menasheh were fully considered as two tribes, and it was this which constituted Joseph’s birthright, and the words of the Sages indeed corroborate this everywhere.Thus the matter is not at all as the Rabbi stated it. Instead, the Land of Israel was divided according to tribes. They made twelve equal parts of it, with Simeon, the least populous of the tribes, taking a share equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes, and thus, Ephraim and Menasheh took exactly the same amount of land as Reuben and Simeon. This is the conclusion of the Gemara in the chapter, Yesh Nochalin. (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. Scripture also states, Ye shall divide the land for inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel, Joseph receiving two portions. So too does Onkelos say, “Two tribes shall come forth from his sons. They shall receive chulka ve’achsanta (portion and inheritance),” which means that they shall be equal to the other tribes with respect to inheritance received. Now chulka (portion) refers to the extra share of the first-born, and achsanta (inheritance) refers to ordinary inheritance. In the verse stating, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance, Scripture refers to the paternal families mentioned there in the chapter., Verses 8-50. Scripture is stating that the tribe divides its share of the land among the paternal families that left Egypt by giving a larger portion to a more populous family and a smaller portion to a less populous family, with the dead becoming heirs of the living, as is explained in the Sifre and is mentioned by Rashi in the Parshah of Pinchas. Thus the general principle with respect to Joseph was that he was the first-born as regards inheritance, and if, as mentioned in the Gemara, (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. the land was divided according to the number of tribes, they gave the children of Joseph portions equal to those of Reuben and Simeon.And even if we were to say that the land was divided according to the number of persons, as is apparent from the verse, etc. (Numbers 26:54.) then we would say that they gave them double portions commensurate with their numbers — an ordinary share as large as all the other people, and a second portion for the birthright. In that case, the meaning of Jacob’s words, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me, is that they should receive as many shares as twice their number of people. But that Joseph should be as the other tribes with respect to inheritance, with the birthright consisting of his two sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi stated, this is impossible under any circumstance.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ומולדתך אשר הולדת, perhaps Joseph had sired other sons during the years that Yaakov had resided in Egypt even though the Torah did not see fit to mention this explicitly. The reason that Joseph did not bring them with him to his father’s bedside may have been that they were too young to travel.Even if you were to understand the word ומולדתך as does Onkelos, and other commentators, i.e. תוליד, as if Yaakov had meant: “whom you will sire,” we also do not find any mention of children born to Joseph after Menashe and Ephrayim.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.