The image I have proffered of the Besht as a man who fit in with the institutions, doctrines, and practices of his time, helped to perpetuate them, yet also developed them, contrasts with the common denominator of most Besht portrayals. Whether they saw the Besht positively or negatively, as a religious or a social activist, as a near-ignoramus or a profound thinker, nearly all the standard accounts made the Besht into a religious revolutionary who established something new and virtually unprecedented—doctrinal and institutional constellations that quickly coalesced into the new Hasidic movement.

This insistence on the Besht as organizational pioneer entails a fair measure of projection onto him of later beliefs and institutions. A good example of this is the image of the Besht that emerged around the Lubavitch, or Habad, Hasidic court at the time of its transition from the generation of its first zaddik, Shneur Zalman of Ladi, to its second, his son, Dov Ber of Lubavitch.

As can be seen in the history of Christianity or Islam, when religious movements develop, institutionalize, expand, and diversify, a host of internal conflicts—personal, political, and doctrinal—arise. Controversies over leadership, power, and belief beset successful religious movements and often result in violent internal conflicts or schisms.

In its early stages in the late eighteenth century, the Hasidic movement appeared to have successfully avoided these types of conficts. There seemed to be room for a multiplicity of leaders, leadership styles, and doctrines. Many Hasidic zaddikim or rebbes and the groups surrounding them coexisted peacefully, and leadership struggles were few.

Rapoport-Albert has shown that this was true mainly because the movement was not yet fully institutionalized. Groupings around one zaddik or another were temporary and fluid. Once the zaddik leading a group died, the group typically broke up and its members gravitated to other zaddikim, not necessarily en masse. The principle seems to have been that a Hasid should choose some zaddik to guide him to holiness. The choice was, however, of a person, not a “school,” a court, or a dynasty. A zaddik's appeal derived from his personal charisma and not from some institutionalized devolution of authority to him.