Scholarly biographical descriptions of Israel ben Eliezer contain a few points on which there is at least a consensus. Most writers agree that he lived from approximately 1700 to 1760 and was a person of humble origins who eventually merited the appellation Ba'al Shem Tov (the Besht), which translates as “Master of the Good Name” (the precise meaning of this title has been the subject of some discussion; see below). The Besht had certain mystical powers and was known as a nonascetic, pneumaticecstatic who projected charismatic appeal. He involved himself in the problems of everyday life and communicated with people through folksy discussion and the telling of stories. He was in some sense the founder of the movement that became known as Hasidism. Beyond these basic points, however, there is little agreement about most aspects of the Besht's biography.

Scholars dispute whether the Besht became prominent as a result of the spiritual devotion he personified and inspired or as a result of his healing and magical abilities. Some denied that he claimed or utilized magical or theurgic abilities, while others theorized that at some point he ceased to employ them. There were those who called him a vulgar ignoramus and those who styled him a profound and original religious fig ure comparable to Buddha, Jesus, or Spinoza. With regard to the details of his activity, there are many questions with multiple answers, and each implied answer has had its proponents.

Did the Besht create a new movement, or redirect an existing movement, or have nothing to do with a movement? Did he establish institutions? Was his stance toward the rabbinic/communal establishment approving or disapproving, and did his position change over time? Were his followers marginal people, the “common people,” second-class intelligentsia and clergy, or first-rank mystics and scholars? Was the Besht's public activity primarily religious, or did it focus on social and political issues as well? Did he inaugurate a new path in religious life or simply realize traditional ideals in a more successful way? Was he populist or elitist or some combination of the two? How much attention did he attract, and was there significant opposition to him in his lifetime?