His amusing yet informative conclusion about translations, both specifically and generally:
His note 16 on Artscroll's consistency in translations:
One has to credit ArtScroll for being consistent in its policy of translating places literally. It translates Yam Hamelach as Salt Sea (Genesis 14:3, Numbers 34:3 and 34:12) and Yam Hagadol as Great Sea (Numbers 34:6, 7). In truth, while the Yam Suf translation may be justifiable because of the ArtScroll policy of translating according to Rashi, the other two translations cited are inexplicable. Even ArtScroll does not translate Abraham’s two sons as “He is rejoicing” and “May God listen.”The error Professor Zivotofsky makes is found at the very end of his article in footnote 17, where he says
This, is in fact, the subject of a Tannaic dispute. In the context of the infant Moshe story, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says that suf refers to a marsh with reeds and willows. But Rabbi Elazar opines that suf was shorthand for Yam Suf, and the Torah was not describing the physical surroundings but the actual location (Shemot Rabbah 1:21; Sotah 12a-b).First, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani and Rabbi Elazar are both third generation amoraim, so they shouldn't be appearing in tannaitic texts. Secondly, although there is a tannaitic text (a beraisa) just above where their discussion is found, commenting on the same verse on which they are commenting, they are not part of that beraisa:
תנא: חמר מבפנים וזפת מבחוץ, כדי שלא יריח אותו צדיק ריח רע.
ותשם בה את הילד ותשם בסוף.
רבי אלעזר אומר: ים סוף
רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר אגם, כדכתיב קנה וסוף קמל