Why did the jurists not adopt the Hadith, "Nothing interrupts the prayer of a Muslim," which is narrated in Sahih Al-Bukhari, but instead adopted the Hadith, "A woman, a donkey, and a black dog interrupt the prayer"?

The Hadith "Nothing cuts off the prayer" was not narrated by Al-Bukhari in his Sahih; rather, he titled a chapter "Whoever said nothing cuts off the prayer." This Hadith was reported in Sunan Abi Dawud with a chain of narration that includes Mujalid ibn Sa'id, about whom there is some discussion, and he was deemed weak by a number of scholars. Therefore, it was not adopted by those who hold that a woman, a donkey, and a black dog cut off the prayer, due to the establishment of that in the Hadith in Sahih Muslim from Abu Hurairah.

The jurists differed on the issue of what cuts off prayer. The Hanafis, Malikis, and Shafi'is held that the passing of something between the worshipper and the sutrah (barrier) does not cut off the prayer. The Hanbalis agreed with them, except they made an exception for the black dog. No scholar intentionally abandons an authentic Hadith. Their excuses for this include: not believing that the Prophet, may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him, said it; or not believing that the Hadith intended that specific ruling; or believing that the ruling has been abrogated.