But it says explicitly in Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 115:4, that the whole issue of head covering is in the category of Jewish practice, which is “the custom of modesty practiced by Jewish women.” And in the list of violations of the Law of Moses in the immediately preceding סעיפים there is no mention of head covering at all. And that is also how it is in the Tur. This is unlike Maimonides, who split the issue of covering between the Law of Moses and Jewish practice, distinguishing between basic covering and more extensive covering. So at least according to the Shulchan Arukh, this is a custom, like Rashi’s approach in Ketubot, the second version.

In the Shulchan Arukh, he is not dealing with conceptual Talmudic analysis but with practical Jewish law. As for going out without the ketubah payment, there is no difference between the Law of Moses and Jewish practice. What is defined only as the Law of Moses is brought at the beginning of the section, but head covering is sometimes a matter of Jewish practice, and therefore he listed it entirely under Jewish practice. And the commentaries there wrote when it is the Law of Moses, and did not raise any difficulty with the author at all. It seems that is because of what I wrote.