The Orthodox view is that primacy is given to the present Rabbinic interpretations (and extensions) of the law beyond the literal meaning of the Biblical canon (called "Tanakh", which includes the 5 books of Moses as well as the writings of some later sages and prophets).

It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law. Instead, the Rabbinic derivations are seen as capturing the underlying intent of biblical law as it may actually manifest in real societal practice.

An example is the famous "take an eye for an eye" statement, which is interpreted Rabinically as referring to monetary compensation for damages. Actually seeking to physically harm someone in accordance to harm done to you is a gross violation of law.

The "eye for an eye" makes some sense in your description, as it seems to be against other biblical directives.

Where can I look into your statement "It is considered heresy to view the Bible/Tanakh as the last word on a law."?

This is is a new idea that I had not heard before, and it would explain a lot of discussions I have had over the years if I understood it's source. (I keep the sabbath, annual holy days, but not the Jewish laws, so I have had some interesting discussions over the years)

Orthodox (and broadly, "Rabbinic") Judaism place equal weight on the "Oral Torah" – a set of evolving traditions and insights which orbit the written books in vast and intricate constellations. To deny the validity of the Oral Torah is considered heretical. If you were to just follow the 5 books, and nothing else, most modern (Orthodox) Jews would say "that's not Judaism [as we understand/perceive it]".

For a bit more info I found this Quora question, which has some good answers: https://www.quora.com/Do-people-of-the-Jewish-faith-interpre... (Only the first 3-4 answers, after which the answers divert into jokes, and a very odd fire 'n brimstone answer.)

Thanks for the Quora link, there is some very interesting comments there.