Nedarim 81 tells us that talmidei chachamim usually do not produce children who are talmidei chachamim “shelo yomru yerushah hi lahem”, so that it should not be said that the Torah is an inheritance for them. Ran and Rosh offer two very different interpretations of this line. Ran explains that the children of talmidei chachamim feel a sense of entitlement in their learning and do not strive as hard as others. In the end, this lack of effort catches up with them. Torah is not genetic; it is not an inheritance - without work and toil, one cannot succeed. According to the Ran, the gemara’s lesson is directed at the children of talmidei chachamim to not rely on their pedigree as a guarantee of success.
Rosh (and Tosfos) on the other hand explain that children of talmidei chachamim do not become talmidei chachamim themselves lest all others who do not come from a lineage of scholars simply give up hope of ever succeeding in learning. The lesson of the gemara is directed at the hoi polloi: scholarship is not for descendents of the intellectual elite alone, but is within reach of all.
I do not fully understand this Rosh. According to the Ran, the gemara is simply expressing a rule of thumb about human behavior: when we think we have something coming, we work less to achieve the desired goal. But according to the Rosh, the behavior of the children of talmidei chachamim has nothing to do with the outcome. It is not their lack of effort which prevents the children of talmidei chachamim from becoming scholars in their own right, but it is G-d’s intervention, done for the sake of demonstrating egalitarianism. Doesn’t this intervention interfere with the bechira (free will) of children of talmidei chachamim to achieve what they can on their own merits? Or to put it another way, is it fair to take away the achievements of a minority for the sake of levelling the playing field and creating a more egalitarian distribution?