Dance,
Two quick points for you to ask:
“it is clear from their findings that the Shiltei Giborim was referring to the wearing of a wig in the חצר – the courtyard, where other men were usually not prevalent.”
“Mahari Mintz Katzenelbogen who lived during the times of the Shiltei Giborim stated:
“Our parents and grandparents in all the communities in Ashkenaz have stated their opinion that one should not wear on the head, even a nylon fabric whose weave resembles hair.”
Explain – as per your above Peshat in the SH”G (that it’s only in the courtyard) – – what exactly is the opposition of the Be’er Sheva?
I will quote the part of the oppositional words of the Be’er Sheva Ch 18:
“ואפילו זכר לדבר ליכא להתיר לנשים נשואות לצאת בפאה נכרית מגולה בשוק או בחצר דבקעי ביה רבים כמו שעלה על דעת החכם הנזכר מפני שאפשר לפרש דמה ששנו היתר להתקשט ולצאת בפאה נכרית מיירי דוקא בחצר שאין הרבים בוקעין בו וא”כ בחנם טרח כל הטורח הזה החכם הנזכר דהא אפילו בשערות ראשה ממש מגולות מותר לה לילך בחצר שאין הרבים בוקעין בו ואינו אסור אפי’ משום דת יהודית דהיינו מנהג הצניעות שנהגו בנות ישראל
“ואין להקשות היאך אפשר לפרש הא דתנן יוצאה אשה בכבול ובפאה נכרית בחצר דמיירי דוקא בחצר שאין הרבים בוקעין בו
I.e. The very pshat that we are speaking about i.e. a “Courtyard” is exactly the pshat how the Be’er Shva is disputing the very Mishna the Sht”G based his psak on!
Please relate to that “Talmid Chacham to look up the entire responsum of the Be’er Sheva, and you will see that pshat holds no ground.
Also, the Rema in דרכי משה סי’ ש”ג is specifically talking about Reshus haRabim ans so is the Magen Avrohom and SM”A and PRM”G.
b) You do realize that despite the argument of the above Be’er Sheva – The actual Halacha has been decided like the Sht”G? The very fact that this is the psak of the Rema–
and others, מגן אברהם, לבוש, פרישה, אליה רבה, פמ”ג, “שו”ע הרב, מחצית השקל, ביאור הגר”א משנ”ב, כף החיים ..—
— speaks volumes on its own! As these are the very Poskim that are the foundation of ALL halacha that we follow – and they were not concerned with issue of the Be’er Sheva.
! ומימיהם אנו שותים
Obviously, they were discussing in terms of Halacha not minhag (see Pri Mgadim).
Most of the later achronim you quote, all had the Minhag – at the time – to go covered, so of course there is an issue of Dat Yehadut involved, which is even according to the above Matirim an issue (see Magen Giborim CH 75).
Hence, most quotations of “Issur” is not relevant once the accepted minhag (the reason is an issue on ts own – and does not matter) is that all Charedi women do go with Pe’eh nuchris. Whether the reason was Maris Ayin or minhag is automatically irrelevant once the facts have changed.