But with the intellect you can arrive at an understanding and clarification of what morality is and what the moral act is. Intuition is each person’s private judge, and everyone will do whatever seems right in his own eyes. That can lead to the destruction of society.

I said there is no difference at all. Are you claiming there is? What is it? Every logical argument is based on premises, and those come from intuition.

Okay, so foundational assumptions come from intuition, I understand. But on top of them, does the Rabbi agree that there must be an intellectual argument? For example, there is an intuition that some higher power exists. That is the basic premise of the discussion. On top of that, if you want to arrive at a specific God, you have to make a continuous logical argument, purely intellectual.

No. Sometimes intuition is enough, and sometimes logical analysis is helpful.

The strange assumption at the root of your discussion is that we are dealing with a case where logical analysis is useful, and then you ask whether it is worth doing. Obviously yes. Why not use a tool that is available to you?! This is just an empty discussion.

The Rabbi is right—when they can come together, there is no problem at all. I was mistaken; forgive me.
From the Rabbi’s perspective, if they conflict, does one not have priority over the other? If through intuition I arrived at one conclusion, and through intellectual analysis at a different conclusion, is there no preference for one over the other?
Thank you for everything, Rabbi—it really is not something to take for granted.

There is no such thing as a conflict between intellect and intuition. Everything you call intellect includes intuition within it. I’m repeating myself, and it seems to me that I’ve exhausted the point.