Wig and head covering

I have no position. Head hair is a formal prohibition in my opinion (at least today), so it doesn’t matter how it is covered.
——
Asks:
What is meant by the expression formal prohibition? In any case, if I understood correctly, your position is that covering the head with a wig is permitted.
——
Rabbi:
A formal prohibition means that its purpose (the stimulus that will be created) no longer really exists, but we have no authority to change it (because something that is permitted by one minyan requires another minyan to be permitted). This kind of women’s service means that there is no problem in overlapping as much as possible within the framework of halakhah because the purpose does not really exist.
——
Asker (another):
Is it permissible for a married woman to go without her head completely covered?
——
Rabbi:
A married woman is supposed to cover her head. But on the question of whether the entire head should be covered, according to most jurists, no. There is no clear halachic standard, and there are different statements. I think what is clear is that there should be a significant covering that clearly expresses that she is married.
——
Asks:
Regarding what you said, what is needed is significant coverage to indicate that she is married.
1. Could this lesson be more difficult than the one discussed in the blessings of the fourth chapter: One who touched a woman’s pubic hair?
2. Giving the words of the sages to the lessons One could say that the clear form is that she only has a piece of cloth on her head
——
Rabbi:
How did you conclude that the shiur of the gate is tefach? This is a separate statement there in the Gemara, and if you look at the poskim you will see that they did not cite the shiur of tefach in this.
I did indeed give the things to the lessons, because they are subject to the lessons. Modesty is according to the matter and the circumstances and the norms. Shevut Yaakov writes that it is not necessary to cover the head at all from the rabbinic tradition, but it is sufficient to tie up the hair.
——
Eric:
What is the source that the covering should “be a significant covering that clearly expresses that she is married?”?! Is it instead of a wedding ring (which, as we know, has no source)?! And according to this, a wig is forbidden if it is not distinguished from the exposed hair of a single woman…
——
Rabbi:
Indeed, a wig (if you don’t see that it is a wig) is a formal covering and is not really useful if there is a substantive dimension. That is why people have become interested in it.
It seems to me that there is room for explanation that the obligation to cover the head for a married woman (as is accepted in most opinions in halakhic law) is based on the marking of the married woman. Even if this is not the basis for the obligation to cover the head, there is logic to this in itself. If you want a source, it is before you (in the previous sentence. Responsorial Psalm and Articles 3 Kit).
——
Eric:
Thanks for the reference, but I’m stuck.
I challenged Rabbi Minya Veya, who on the one hand claimed that this was a formal prohibition (and on the other hand there is no problem with a wig), and on the other hand, regarding the size of the wig, the rabbi wrote that there needs to be evidence that she is married (and on the other hand a wig is forbidden). Incidentally, even if the evidence is logical but without a (talmudic) source, it is not binding except on those who want it.
——
Rabbi:
Hello Eric.
First, logical reasoning requires those who know and understand it, not those who want it. Why did I call it reasoning?!
From the perspective of the prohibition, there is no problem with the wig, but the explanation says that it is appropriate to be stricter. Although in most cases people understand that it is a wig, because the “dusi” context teaches this even if you don’t see it directly.