Wearing a Head Covering
Introduction
In modern times, wearing a head covering is a widespread and generally accepted practice among Torah observant Jews. However, its halakhic obligation (Jewish legal requirement) has been debated. The practice of wearing a head covering in Jewish tradition has been a subject of discussion across different communities and historical periods, with varying interpretations and customs. While many Jews today associate wearing a kippah or yarmulke (brimless cap) with religious observance, the question of whether it is an halakhic requirement or a midat hassidut (pious behavior) to cover one’s head during specific religious acts or even at all times remains open to interpretation.
This sketch deliberately focuses on sources that emphasize the view that head covering is a midat hassidut rather than an obligation. In doing so, it seeks to highlight perspectives that have been overshadowed by the widespread assumption that wearing a head covering is universally mandatory.
It will examine sources from the Talmud, Geonic literature, Rishonim, and Achronim to explore the distinction between halakhic obligation and midat hassidut regarding head covering.
The goal is to:
- Trace the halakhic sources that address the practice of head coverings, exploring their origins and the different interpretations over time.
- Promote a more nuanced understanding of its halakhic status, emphasizing the distinction between personal custom and strict obligation in Jewish practice.
Importantly, this is not an argument for or against the practice of wearing a kippah. It is simply an attempt to clarify its halakhic status and distinguish between widespread custom and binding legal obligation.
The Talmudic Sources
The earliest halakhic sources that mention a head covering are found in the Talmud.
Although the following Gemara is not used as a source for the halakhic requirement for covering ones head it does reference being bareheaded. The Mishnah in Tractate Yoma describes a daily lottery held in the Jerusalem Temple to assign specific tasks to the priests.
“And the priests stand in a circle in the shape of a bracelet, and the appointed priest comes and removes the miznephet (priestly turban) from the head of one of them, and everyone thereby knew that the count began from him.” – Tractate Yoma, 25a
We know that when the priest removed his turban he is bareheaded because it is forbidden for a priest to wear anything besides the Bigdei kehunah (the priestly garments). Furthermore Tosafot remarks on the above Gemara that “It is disgraceful to stand bareheaded in the courtyard of the Temple,” and consequently concluded that the lottery must have occurred outside the courtyard. Nevertheless, both a straightforward reading of the text and Tosafot indicate that the priest remained bareheaded during the process. This appears to show that at least under certain conditions it is permitted to be bareheaded.
The following Gemaras are the main sources that all later commentators and poskim (halakhic decisors) engage with in order to determine the halakhic obligation of covering ones head.
“Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is forbidden for a man to walk four cubits with an upright posture, as it says, ‘The whole land is filled with His Honor.’ Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: ‘The Divine Presence is above my head.” – Kiddushin, 31a
“Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: May I receive my reward because I never walked four cubits with my head uncovered.” – Shabbat, 118b
In the above Gemara (Shabbat), Rav Huna uses the phrase “תיתי לי” (May I receive reward). This phrase is important and will be expounded by later commentators.
The question is whether we derive a universally binding halakha from the above Gemara or whether we understand it as a stringency that Rav Huna accepted upon himself. Let us look at some post Talmudic commentaries that mention head coverings.
The Geonic Sources
Teshuvot HaGeonim
Teshuvot HaGeonim is a collection of responsa from the Geonic period. It represents one of the key sources for Geonic responsa. Here it is written that Rav (175–247 CE) followed ten pious practices but not all of his disciples were able to uphold all of them. Each one of his disciples upheld one of them. One of the ten practices was that he did not walk four cubits with an uncovered head, and Rav Huna followed this practice after him. – Teshuvot HaGeonim, Shaarei Teshuva 178:1
The fact that it is called a midat hassidut and not all of Rav’s disciples followed all of these practices indicates that head covering was regarded as a voluntary stringency among some sages, rather than a mandatory requirement for all.
Sefer Ha-Hilukim
The Sefer Ha-Hilukim is a work composed in the Geonic period which records the difference in customs between the Jewish communities of Babylon and Israel. One of the differing customs mentioned was that the Jews of Israel did not have the custom of covering their heads similar to the way the non-Jews they lived among behaved. They did not cover their heads even while praying, reading from the Torah, and performing the priestly blessing, whereas the Jews of Babylon were accustomed to covering their heads. – Sefer Ha-Hilukim, 3:42
The fact that head covering during prayer and other religious acts was common in Babylon but not in Israel suggests that head covering was more of a regional custom rather than a universally accepted practice at that time.
Sources in the Rishonim
Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (The Rambam) (1138-1204)
The Rambam writes in Mishneh Torah:
“Torah Sages conduct themselves with exceptional modesty. They do not demean themselves and do not bare their heads or their bodies.” – Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De’ot 5:6
By specifically mentioning Torah Sages and using the phrase “exceptional modesty,” it seems evident from the text that the Rambam is referring to the practice of head covering as being particular to Torah Sages, rather than a universal expectation for all individuals.
“One should not pray wearing only his undershirt, bareheaded, or barefoot – if it is the custom of the people of that place to stand before their most respected people with shoes.” – Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefillah 5:5
By specifically mentioning prayer the Rambam implies that the practice of head covering outside of prayer is not required.
“The great men among our Sages would not uncover their heads because they believed that God’s glory was round them and over them; for the same reason they spoke little.” – Moreh Nevukhim, 3:52:2
Here, again by specifically mentioning “great men among our Sages” it seems from the text that the Rambam is referring to the practice of head covering as being particular to Torah Sages, rather than a universal expectation for all individuals.
While the Rambam mentions head covering during prayer, it seems that wearing a head covering at other times was a practice primarily followed by prominent sages, rather than a widespread custom among the general population.
Yitzhak ben Moshe of Vienna (The Ohr Zarua) (1200-1270)
The Ohr Zarua, mentions in his work that it is the custom among his rabbis in France to recite blessings with an uncovered head. He disagrees, and says that this custom does not seem proper to him. – Ohr Zarua, 2:43
We see from this that while the Ohr Zarua disagrees with not wearing a head covering, he highlights a diversity of practices in the medieval period concerning head covering. The fact that such a custom existed among prominent French rabbis indicates that covering one’s head during blessings was not universally accepted as obligatory.
The Kol Bo (13th Century) and Maharam of Rothenburg (1215-1293)
The Kol Bo is an halakhic work that was likely written in the 13th century, and is referenced by many later authorities. The Kol Bo states in the name of the Maharam of Rothenburg who was a student of the Ohr Zarua and the Rosh’s teacher, that It is not forbidden to walk outdoors with an uncovered head, and Rav Huna’s words in the Talmud refer to a midat hassidut. – Kol Bo, 11:117
The Kol Bo also states that one should wear a head covering during prayer if it is customary in your locale to stand before important people with a head covering. The Kol Bo goes on to quote the Rif as saying that one should object to entering a synagogue with an uncovered head.
This suggests that covering ones head outside of prayer is based on local custom and social norms, rather than a strict halakhic obligation.
Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (The Tur) (1270-1340)
The Tur writes in his work that one should cover their head. He references Kiddushin, 31a. – Arba’ah Turim, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 2:1
Initially, this seems that the Tur considers covering ones head an halakhic obligation but this is not how he is understood by later poskim.
Sources in the Achronim
Rabbi Moshe Isserles (The Rema) (1530-1572)
The Rema comments on the Tur, and says that covering the head is a midat hassidut and he cites the Kol Bo and Maharam of Rothenburg, which say that It is not forbidden to walk outdoors with an uncovered head. – Darkhei Moshe, Orah Hayyim 2:2
He also writes in, that walking with an uncovered head is not prohibited by halakha but is rather a midat hassidut. – Darkhei Moshe, Orah Hayyim 8:4:1
Rabbi Yehoshua Falk (1555-1614)
Commenting on the Tur, Rabbi Yehoshua Falk, a student of both the Rema and the Maharshal, writes in his work that wearing a head covering is a midat hassidut. – Prisha, Orah Hayyim 2:6
In his other work, also commenting on the Tur, he writes:
“The Kol Bo writes in the name of the Maharam of Rothenburg that there is no prohibition against walking with an uncovered head, as Rav Huna’s statement “May I receive reward because I never walked four cubits with my head uncovered” was a midat hassidut. However, it is forbidden to walk with an uncovered head in a synagogue or to recite any blessing with an uncovered head.” – Drisha, Orach Chaim 91:1:
Yoel Sirkis (The Bach) (1561-1640)
The Bach comments on the Tur in his work that the phrase “תיתי לי” used by Rav Huna (in Shabbat 118b) indicates that not walking four cubits with an uncovered head is a midat hassidut, rather than a strict halakhic obligation. He says that the phrase “תיתי לי” is used in various contexts to indicate personal stringencies, all of which are acts of piety. – Bayit Hadash, Orah Hayyim 2:2
Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575)
Rabbi Yosef Karo also known as the Beit Yosef, has a somewhat ambiguous position as to whether a head covering is a strict obligation or merely a custom.
He writes in his work the the Beit Yosef, quoting the Kol Bo and the Maharam of Rothenburg that it is not forbidden to walk with an uncovered head, and that Rav Huna not walking four cubits with an uncovered head is a midat hassidut as indicated by the phrase “תיתי לי” (May I receive reward).
“And regarding what our teacher the Tur wrote, “And he should cover his head,” the Kol Bo writes in Siman 11 that the Maharam of Rothenburg stated that it is not forbidden to walk with an uncovered head, as what was said in Tractate Shabbat (118b), “May I receive reward because I never walked four cubits with an uncovered head,” refers to a midat hassidut. However, the Rif wrote that one should protest against entering a synagogue with an uncovered head.” – Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim 91:4
Furthermore he writes that there is a dispute as to whether it is permissible to recite a blessing with an uncovered head or whether it is forbidden. And since Rabbeinu Yerucham (1290-1350) ruled that it is forbidden, we follow his ruling.
“Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote at the end of Netiv 16 that it is forbidden to recite a blessing with an uncovered head. In Masechet Soferim (chapter 14), it is written that a poheach—one whose legs or garments are torn, or one whose head is uncovered—may lead the reading of the Shema. However, there is a differing opinion that states that if his legs and garments are torn, he may still lead, but if his head is uncovered, he is not permitted to utter God’s name.
From this, it appears that there is a dispute as to whether it is permissible to recite a blessing with an uncovered head or if it is forbidden. And since Rabbeinu Yerucham ruled according to the opinion that it is forbidden, we follow this ruling.” – Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim 91:4
He then writes in the Shulhan Arukh:
“There are those who say that it is forbidden to mention G-d’s name with an uncovered head. And there are those who say that one should object that people should not enter the synagogue with an uncovered head.” – Shulḥan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 91:3
This is understood by the Magen Avraham (1635 – 1682) as a midat hassidut, and not an halakhic requirement. He references the Beit Yosef. – Magen Avraham, Orah Hayyim 91:3
Rav Karo also writes in the Shulhan Arukh:
“It is forbidden to walk in an upright posture, and do not walk a distance of four amot with the head uncovered. – Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 2:6
At first this might seem to imply that it is forbidden to walk four cubits with an uncovered head but upon closer examination we see that he uses the word “forbidden” when referring to walking with an upright posture and when he refers to a head covering he writes “do not walk”. This seems to indicate that he considers walking with an upright posture forbidden and walking with an uncovered head is not.
Indeed, The Hida (1724-1806) in Birkei Yosef understands the mention of a head covering in the above Shulhan Arukh as being a midat hassidut. He references the Maharshal. – Birkei Yosef, Orah Hayyim 2:2
Looking at all the above sources, it appears that Rabbi Yosef Karo’s position is that wearing a head covering outside of saying G-d’s name or entering a synagogue is a midat hassidut.
Rabbi Shlomo Luria (The Maharshal) (1510-1573)
The Maharshal writes in his responsa:
“I know of no prohibition against reciting a blessing without a head covering. Yet it was obvious to Yisrael Isserlein (1390-1460) that it is forbidden to invoke G-d’s name without the head covered, and I do not know whence he infers that. Now I have found that it is written in tractate Soferim, 14:15 that there is a dispute: ‘A shabby person whose knees are visible or whose clothing is torn, or one whose head is uncovered, may lead the prayers (“pores et ha-Shema”), but some say that one may lead with knees showing or torn clothes, but not with an uncovered head. And he may not let mention of God’s name leave his mouth.’ R. Yeruham wrote that it is forbidden to recite a blessing with an uncovered head.” – Teshuvot Maharshal, 72:2
He continues:
“If not for the fact that I do not usually dispute earlier authorities unless there is a great authority to support me, I would incline toward leniency and in favor of reciting blessings with an uncovered head. Even the recitation of Shema is permitted, for it states in Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 27:5 ‘What did the residents of the province do? They stood on their feet, bared their heads, and read it with reverence, awe, quaking, and trembling.’ This clearly implies that it is not forbidden to uncover one’s head. But what can I do? They have already ruled this to be forbidden.” – Teshuvot Maharshal, 72:3
He also expresses surprise that some authorities forbid uncovering the head even when not praying, stating that he finds no prohibition against having an uncovered head, and regarding Kiddushin, 31a, the Maharshal explains that Rav Huna was stringent with himself, performing an act of midat hassidut. Like the Bach, he notes that when “תיתי לי” is used it refers to a midat hassidut, rather than a strict obligation. The use of the phrase “תיתי לי” shows that Rav Huna regarded his practice as a personal stringency for which he hoped to be rewarded, rather than a universally binding law. He also cites the Maharam of Rothenburg, saying that covering ones head is a midat hassidut.
“Yet I am astonished that they treat uncovering the head as forbidden even when not praying. I do not know whence they derived this, for we find no prohibition against an uncovered head”
“R. Hanina said: I deserve it, for I did not walk four cubits with an uncovered head.” This reflects piety, like all of the other examples of “I deserve” listed there. Further evidence is from the first chapter of Kiddushin (31a), which rules: R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: It is forbidden to walk four cubits with an upright posture, as it is stated: ‘The whole world is filled with His glory’ (Yeshayahu 6:3). R. Huna b. R. Yehoshua would not walk four cubits with his head uncovered. He would say: ‘The divine presence is above my head.’ This implies that specifically walking with an erect posture is forbidden, but it is not forbidden to do so with one’s head uncovered. Rather, R. Huna was stringent with himself, motivated by piety.
Nowadays, the opposite is the case: they are not careful about avoiding an erect posture. On the contrary, the proud and the rich walk around with their heads held high, but they are careful about uncovering their heads—not because of piety, but because they think this is the Jewish religion.” – Teshuvot Maharshal, 72:4
He writes regarding studying Torah with an uncovered head:
“I have heard of a sage who would study Torah with his head uncovered, saying that the weight was too heavy for him. Nevertheless, it seems to me that although it is not forbidden, and it is not even an act of piety if one is not invoking G-d’s name, a Torah scholar should still be cautious, for the people perceive it as laxity and permissiveness, as though he transgressed the Jewish religion. Even if he is studying in his room, he should not rely on this, lest an ignoramus see him and make light of him. It is not for naught that they say that anything forbidden because of how it looks is even forbidden in the innermost chambers.” – Teshuvot Maharshal, 72:6
He further relays the following:
“Now I will disclose the disgrace of Ashkenazim (Jews of Germany). Certainly one who drinks yayin nesekh (wine which was poured in the service of idolatry) in a gentile’s inn, and eats fish cooked in their vessels, and who is considered strict if he trusts the innkeeper’s wife when she says that she did not cook anything else in them, is not under any suspicion. We do not investigate him, and we treat him with respect if he is rich and powerful. But one who eats and drinks only kosher food, but he does so with his head uncovered, is perceived to be a deviant. Therefore, ‘the wise man has his eyes in his head’ (Kohelet 2:14) and will know to protect himself so that they do not attack him.” – Teshuvot Maharshal, 72:7
In summary, the Maharshal consistently argues that head covering is a midat hassidut rather than an absolute halakhic requirement. He critiques the tendency to treat uncovering the head as forbidden while overlooking more severe transgressions, such as leniency in dietary laws. He acknowledges the presence of stricter rulings from earlier authorities, such as Rabbeinu Yerucham, but expresses doubt as to their basis.
He sees Rav Huna’s practice of covering his head as a personal act of piety, not a universal obligation. He further criticizes the inconsistency of Jewish communities, noting that they prioritize external symbols—like head covering—over fundamental halakhic principles.
Despite his stance, he advises Torah scholars to be cautious about uncovering their heads, even if technically permitted, due to the perception it may create among the public. His primary concern is that adherence to head covering is driven more by social pressure than by true religious reasoning.
In essence, the Maharshal’s position reflects a halakhic and sociological critique—he acknowledges the widespread custom but challenges its perceived authority as an halakhic mandate.
Rabbi Eliyahu (The Vilna Gaon or The Gra) (1720-1797)
The Gra writes that there is no halakhic obligation to wear a head covering, even when saying G-d’s name. However, he maintains that one should cover their head in the presence of Torah scholars and during prayer, out of respect and reverence. Like the Bach and the Maharshal, the Gra sees Rav Huna’s statement in Tractate Shabbat as a midat hassidut, rather than a strict obligation. Rav Huna’s use of the phrase “תיתי לי” shows that he regarded his practice as a personal stringency for which he hoped to be rewarded, rather than a universally binding law. – Biur HaGra, 8:2:3
Additionally, the Gra references the Tosefta, which states:
“A poheah (person in rags) may lead the reading of the Shema, and may translate the Torah into Aramaic.” – Tosefta Megillah, 3:17
While this Tosefta does not mention head coverings directly, according to the Gra, a poheah refers, among other things, to a person who lacks a head covering. He emphasizes that this allowance further supports the view that head covering is not a strict halakhic requirement, but rather a midat hassidut that is commendable during prayer and in the presence of Torah scholars.
Like the Maharshal, he cites Midrash Rabba, Vayikra 27:5 implying that it is not forbidden to uncover one’s head
Modern Day Poskim
As we move to the more modern day codifiers of Halakha such as the Arukh HaShulhan and the Mishnah Berurah we see a more stringent view develop.
Rabbi Dovid Zvi Hoffmann (1843-1921)
Rabbi Dovid Zvi Hoffmann in his responsa:
“Today, the strict rabbis in Hungary are very stringent about head covering, as you can see from the discussions in Responsa Nachalat Binyamin, Siman 30, which delves into Talmudic and halachic sources. However, the Gra, in his glosses to Siman 8, Se’if Katan 2, concludes that there is no prohibition to even mention God’s name with an uncovered head, but it is a midat hassidut.”
Furthermore, he relays the following:
“In the community of pious Jews in Frankfurt-am-Main, in a school founded by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, where I taught for two and a half years, students would sit with uncovered heads during secular studies but cover their heads during Torah study. This was the custom both in Frankfurt and in Hamburg, and it was instituted by Rabbi Hirsch himself.”
“When I first came to Rabbi Hirsch’s home with my hat on, he instructed me to remove my hat, explaining that it was proper etiquette to do so when visiting an important person. He mentioned that if another teacher, particularly one who was not Jewish, saw that I did not remove my hat before the head of the school (the director), it could be considered disrespectful. Such actions do not violate the prohibition of adopting non-Jewish customs.” – Melammed Lehoil, 2:56
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908)
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein writes in the Arukh HaShulhan:
“And we have from the Great Rabbis that explain that at its essence there is a prohibition against having an exposed head, and there are some that explain that it is only a midat hasidut, the right thing to do, but not necessarily required. However, if you look you will find that it is the common practice. (But in a forced position, such as in the courts of the emperor may his name be glorified, where by the law of the land one may not walk with his head covered — he is permitted to leave his head uncovered. But in a non-forced position, whoever wants to merit awe of Hashem should make sure he does this. Enough said for an understanding person. And if you investigate, you will see that it is simple.)” – Arukh HaShulhan, Orah Hayyim 2:10
Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan (The Chofetz Chaim) (1838-1933)
The Chofetz Chaim writes in his halakhic work the Mishnah Berurah:
“The pious trait is to not move without a yarmulke even less than 4 cubits, and to do so even when sleeping at night. There are those who lean towards saying that moving even 4 cubits without a yarmulke isn’t prohibited according to Jewish law except for those who are modest in their ways. However, the Ta”z has already written below in siman 8 that in our time it is entirely prohibited according to Jewish law to have one’s head uncovered, even when sitting in his house – see there for the reason. And so too writes Mahar”i Bruna. And Magen Avraham writes that even for minors it is correct to habituate them in covering their heads, in order to instill an awe of heaven, as it was brought, (Shabbat 156) “Cover your head so that an awe of heaven will be upon you.” – Mishnah Berurah, 2:11
Conclusion
In this sketch, I have focused primarily on the opinions of halakhic authorities who view wearing a head covering as a midat hasidut rather than an halakhic obligation. This perspective does not seek to dismiss the stricter view—one that has become widely accepted in many communities—but rather to present a more nuanced understanding of the broader spectrum of halakhic thought.
While the stringent position is respected, many significant rabbinic authorities, such as the Talmud, the Rambam, the Kol Bo, the Maharam of Rothenburg, the Maharshal, the Rema, the Bach and the Gra, emphasize that head covering is primarily an act of reverence, particularly in contexts like prayer, Torah study, or in the presence of Torah scholars. Outside these specific contexts, these authorities regarded head covering as a midat hasidut rather than a strict obligation. For instance, Rav Huna’s practice of not walking four cubits without a head covering, as noted in the Talmud, is portrayed as a personal stringency, not a universally binding law, as indicated by the phrase “תיתי לי” (“may I receive reward”). This phrase shows that Rav Huna saw his behavior as a personal act of piety, not an halakhic obligation for all.
Limits of Rabbinic Authority and the Nature of Halakhic Obligation
A crucial aspect of this discussion—one that extends beyond the specific case of head covering—is the question of whether a practice that begins as a midat hasidut can, through widespread adoption, become halakhically obligatory. Even if some poskim discourage not wearing a head covering, they still categorize it as a midat hasidut. The question arises whether a widespread custom can eventually take on the weight of a halakhic obligation. This tension reflects a broader issue in Jewish law: how customs evolve and can sometimes be treated as binding when adopted by a community at large.
However, according to Deuteronomy 13:1, we are prohibited from adding to the Torah (Bal Tosif). The Sanhedrin, when it was functioning, had the authority to issue takanot (binding decrees), but after its dissolution, no single posek or group of rabbis can declare something universally prohibited or obligatory.
The Rambam explains that post-Talmudic authorities do not have the power to establish new halakhic obligations for all of Israel—only the Sanhedrin had that power.
“The Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people. – Hilchot Mamrim, 1:1
“After the Supreme Sanhedrin was nullified, differences of opinion multiplied among the Jewish people. One would rule an article is impure and support his ruling with a rationale and another would rule that it is pure and support his ruling with a rationale. This one would rule an article is forbidden and this would rule that it is permitted.” – Hilchot Mamrim, 1:4
This distinction highlights a critical difference in halakhic authority:
A posek can rule that his followers must cover their heads because of communal norms. A posek cannot declare that all Jews worldwide must cover their heads as an halakhic obligation unless it was always an established law.
Thus, even later poskim who treat head covering as mandatory (such as the Mishnah Berurah) are expressing their interpretation of evolving norms—not issuing a new Torah or Sanhedrin-level decree.
What Does This Mean for Head Covering?
Pre-Talmudic and Talmudic law never mandated a universal head covering.
Later poskim (such as the Arukh HaShulchan and Mishnah Berurah) ruled that it should be followed due to widespread acceptance, but they did not create a new mitzvah.
Their rulings apply to those who follow their authority, but they cannot declare it objectively forbidden for someone who follows an earlier approach (e.g., Rambam, Maharshal, Maharam of Rothenburg, or the Vilna Gaon).
Therefore, someone who follows all biblical and rabbinic laws but does not cover their head cannot be said to be violating halakha itself—only that they are going against the expectations of later communities.
Practical Conclusion
While covering one’s head has become a deeply ingrained and meaningful Jewish practice, the halakhic sources do not support its status as a universal obligation. The case of head covering serves as an example of a broader principle in halakha: a minhag becoming widespread does not, in itself, transform into binding halakha.
A posek may issue rulings for his followers, but he cannot create new obligations for all Jews. Head covering was never an absolute halakhic obligation, and one who does not cover their head while following all Torah and rabbinic commandments is still considered halakhically observant.
To conclude, this discussion is not intended to diminish the value of wearing a head covering, nor to discourage those who do. Rather, the goal is to clarify its halakhic status as a midat ḥasidut, not a strict obligation. Recognizing this helps us approach the topic with greater intellectual honesty and historical awareness, and understand it as a meaningful custom rather than an halakhic requirement.