Only a Lubavitcher would say rashi on Chumash is saying something different than Rashi on Gemara
Rashi is one person he doesn’t argue on himself and if you think that then YOU obviously don’t understand something!
A) I didn’t say that they disagree. I said that I was discussing the words that Rashi said in Gemara which he doesn’t say in his pirush on Chumash.
B) Why don’t you do research before embarrassing yourself online? Everyone (who knows how to learn) knows that Rashi on Torah often differs from Rashi on Gemara, because he wrote each pirush for a different purpose:
Rashi in Gemara wants to explain the pshat of the Gemara, while Rashi on Chumash wants to explain the simplest pshat of the Chumash itself (as he writes in Bereishis: “אני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא”), ommiting any pirushim that dont fit this goal.
He often explains the pesukim opposite of how the Gemara itself explains them, how much more so opposite of his pirush on Gemara!
This is a known fact to anyone who learns Chumash and Gemara with Rashi.
Rashi is one person he doesn’t argue on himself and if you think that then YOU obviously don’t understand something!
This is absolute nonsense. There are many different darkei halimmud, and we often find one commentator who explains things in different ways in his different seforim.
Another example is the Rambam, who explains things one way in Moreh Nevuchim (which is a hashkafa sefer geared toward struggling Jews) and completely differently in Mishneh Torah (which is a halacha sefer), because both of these books serve very different purposes.
[See an earlier post of mine regarding how the Rambam explains Shiluach Haken in Mishneh Torah and in the Moreh.]