We are continuing in Tractate Zevachim, chapter 12, mishnah 3, which continues the discussion on the issue of animal hides - who receives the hide.
The two laws at the beginning of the mishnah:
"Oros kodashim kalim labealim" - The hides of kodashim kalim belong to the owners. In kodashim kalim, such as shelamim, todah, and the like, a person brings his sacrifice and receives the meat, and the hide also remains in his possession. The source for the hide going to the owners is also derived from a verse.
"Ve'oros kadshei kodashim lakohanim" - And the hides of kadshei kodashim belong to the kohanim. Not only the hide of the olah, but even the hides of the asham and the chatas are given to the kohanim.
The kal vachomer of Rabbi Yishmael:
The tanna of our mishnah, as the Gemara explains, is Rabbi Yishmael, and he proves this law through a kal vachomer (a fortiori inference): "Im olah, shelo zachu bivsarah, zachu ve'orah - kadshei kodashim, shezachu bivsaran, eino din sheyizku ve'oran" - If an olah, where they did not acquire its meat, they acquired its hide - is it not logical that for kadshei kodashim, where they did acquire their meat, they should acquire their hide? Meaning:
With an olah, which is among the kadshei kodashim, the kohanim receive the hide even though they do not receive any of the meat at all.
With other kadshei kodashim, the chatas and asham, the kohanim acquire the meat itself - all the more so should they acquire the hide as well.
This is a simple and sufficient kal vachomer.
An objection to the kal vachomer and its refutation:
Seemingly, one could object and say that the olah is fundamentally different, since it is a sacrifice that is completely burned, and perhaps because the meat is burned, the law regarding its hide differs from an animal whose meat is not burned. To this, the mishnah says: "Ein mizbe'ach yochi'ach, she'ein lo or mikol makom" - The Altar cannot prove this, for it does not get the hide in any case. One cannot bring an objection to the kal vachomer from the Altar, which would theoretically undermine the derivation by pointing out that it receives the meat, since the Altar never receives the hide anyway.
It turns out that with the olah, the animal is divided: the meat goes up to the Altar and the hide is given to the kohanim. If so, with a chatas and an asham, where the entire animal besides the emurim goes to the kohanim, certainly the hide should also reach their hands.
This is how Rabbi Yishmael learned it. However, the Gemara notes that the Sages do not agree with this kal vachomer, and according to them, the law is learned from a different derivation from a verse - but the practical law is identical: the hides of the asham and chatas go to the kohanim serving from that beis av on that day.
In summary: In this mishnah we learned about the distribution of the hides - for kodashim kalim to the owners, and for kadshei kodashim to the kohanim; the kal vachomer of Rabbi Yishmael from the olah, that the kohanim acquire its hide even though they do not acquire its meat; the refutation of the objection with the phrase "Ein mizbe'ach yochi'ach, she'ein lo or mikol makom" - The Altar cannot prove this, for it does not get the hide in any case; and the position of the Sages, who learn the law from a derivation of a verse and agree with it practically.