They challenged R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. If so (Kinuy does not require any witnesses, there is no end! Do we let him [claim] that he was Mekanei her, amidst hatred, and he will bring witnesses of seclusion and make her lose her Kesuvah?!

R. Yosi: Why was she secluded?! (Even without Kinuy, this is forbidden!)

[This question] applies to [R. Eliezer's opinion] in our Mishnah (that Kinuy is in front of two, and seclusion is even by himself). Do we let him be Mekanei her with his mouth (in front of two), and say (without any proof) that she was secluded, and make her lose her Kesuvah?!

(R. Mana): The question is even against [R. Eliezer according to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, in] the Beraisa, like the opinion that he can be Mekanei her against seclusion with her father or son. Do we let him [claim] that he was Mekanei her from her father or son, and bring witnesses that she was secluded and make her lose her Kesuvah?!

If you will say 'why was she secluded?!', the Torah permitted her to be secluded (with her father or son)!

(R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon ben Yochai): "Ki Yesischa Achicha Ven Imecha [..Oh Vitecha... ba'Seser]" - your daughter ba'Seser (in seclusion), your mother in seclusion. One may be secluded with his mother and live with her, or with his daughter and live with her, or with his sister (temporarily), but he may not live with her.

Witnesses of Kinuy who were found to be Zomemin, they are lashed.

Witnesses of seclusion who were found to be Zomemin, [all the more so] you say that they are lashed.

Question: Do they pay [her]? From their power (testimony), she would have lost her Kesuvah!

Or, perhaps it is like R. Ba said in the name of R. Yehudah citing Shmuel - we do not learn one matter from another regarding Edim Zomemin. (If they testified about something that he needed to swear about, we do not say that perhaps he would have paid to avoid the Shevu'ah.) Also here [we do not say that perhaps she would have drunk, and not lost anything].