In English "The hat is made of leather" and "The hat is made from leather" would both be perfectly fine. There is perhaps a very tiny distinction between them in that "made of" is really describing what the object is composed of, and "made from" is more describing where the material is from, with a slight emphasis on the manufacture of the item. Does that make any sense? But it's such a tiny distinction you could use either without any issues.
I might say that gelatin is made from bones, soup is made with bones, and my knife handle is made of bone. Gelatin has no actual bones in it, but is derived from bones. Soup might have bones, among other ingredients. The knife handle might be made out of a section of bone.
If my tie is essentially a piece of leather that is folded and sewn in place, I'd say that it's made of leather. I could say that it's made from leather, and people would know what I mean and not consider it wrong. If something is a composite of multiple items, I might be more likely to use "from" but it's not a hard and fast rule.
I am sorry. Still working on umlauts on my phone. It seems I am not as smart as it is :0 It sounded not like either Hute or Hüte , but thank you for the reply. I still think Duolingo should change instruction from "type what you hear" to "type what we think/hope you hear"
Getting tired of these implied "mades" with "aus". "The hats are of leather", while being antiquated English sentence structure, still makes sense. I get that its the same thing, but I dont feel I need to remember to put in extra English words into a translation when the literal translation makes perfect sense.