ubiquitin: Fantastic then we are in full agreement.
Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point…
Permit me, please, to explain the difference between the two cases. In the former case he acknowledges the marriage is over. That effectively means he has no intentions of fulfilling his halachic obligations as her husband. That creates a halachic obligation upon him to divorce. Since if he’s unwilling to carry out his martial obligations to his wife he’s halachicly obligated to accede to her request for a divorce.
OTOH, in the latter case, where he wishes to reestablish shalom bayis, he has no halachic obligation to grant her request for a Get. Barring extenuating rare circumstances that Halacha declares gives her a right to a Get, he has the right to choose to continue the marriage, despite her desire to end it, and furthermore can even take his wife to Beis Din to demand she continue fulfilling her wifely obligations to him.
You said we’re in full agreement. I think I’m just highlighting that Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov can mean a spouse should continue in marriage and fulfill their martial obligations even if they want out. Rather than assuming it means the spouse who wants to continue the marriage should throw in the towel against their will. So, perhaps, though we agree with each other on this discussion, we are each highlighting different aspects of Halacha.
Thank you for having this discussion.